On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there's probably more than that to work out, but in any case > there's no harm in getting a simple optimization done first before > moving on to a complicated one.
I guess we never talked about the abort logic in all that much detail. I suppose there's that, too. > I rather assume we could reuse the results of the first memcmp() > instead of doing it again. > > x = memcmp(); > if (x == 0) > return x; > y = strcoll(); > if (y == 0) > return x; > return y; Of course, but you know what I mean. (I'm sure the compiler will realize this if the programmer doesn't) -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
