On 16/07/14 21:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
The performance difference is about 20% (+/- few depending on the array size), I don't know if that's bad enough to warrant type-specific implementation. I personally don't know how to make the generic implementation much faster than it is now, except maybe by turning it into aggregate which would cache the deconstructed version of the array, but that change semantics quite a bit and is probably not all that desirable.I am not sure if our API is enough to do it - there are no any simple support for immutable parameters.
Just to clarify, the ~20% performance difference is with separate generic implementation for fixed width types (most of the time seems to be spent in the FunctionCallInvoke part, I even tryed to use sortsupport instead but it does not seem to help much).
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
