On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 20:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> No. The current code involves two pallocs per cycle, one inside the
> aggregate function to construct its result value, and then one in
> datumCopy to copy the result into the proper context.
Ah, true -- missed the fact that PG_RETURN_INT64() does a palloc(). (We
really ought to fix that on 64-bit machines...)
> The fact that it's a central fix for all aggregate functions is
> definitely a nice feature of your approach, but I am concerned about the
> possible side-effects on user-defined aggregate functions that may not
> work as you expect them to. I think it's safer to keep the aggregate
> code behaving as-is and get the performance win in the individual
> functions. There are not that many aggregates that we really care that
> much about.
Okay, fair enough :)
BTW, the spec you posted in your previous message makes sense to me.
-Neil
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
