mb for now, hoping a sensible rule will become
obvious later.
Saw no obvious performance impact, so that's good.
Jeroen
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 19:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeroen Vermeulen writes:
> > The printf() is just the simplest example that sprang to mind though.
> > There ma
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 18:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeroen Vermeulen writes:
> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 17:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Let's not do that. Declare it const char *, or maybe better const void
> *.
>
> > Personally I would much prefer "char"
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 17:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> If you mean exposing PQExpBuffer to users of libpq-fe.h, I'd be very
> seriously against that. I realize that libpq exposes it at an ABI
> level, but that doesn't mean we want non-Postgres code to use it.
> I also don't see what it'd add for this
; On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 20:45, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
> > I'm attaching a diff now. This is not a patch, it's just a discussion
> piece.
>
> Did you try with PQExpBuffer? I still think that probably fits better
> in the API design of libpq. Obviously if it's s
use a lot of CPU time, and this
alternative reduces that by a lot.
Jeroen
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 13:38, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 1 Mar 2023, at 15:23, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
>
> > PR for easy discussion: https://github.com/jtv/postgres/pull/1
>
> The process for disc
https://github.com/jtv/postgres/pull/1
Jeroen
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 17:08, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
> Done. Thanks for looking!
>
> Jelte Fennema pointed out that I should probably be using PQExpBuffer for
> this. I'll look into that later; this is a proof of concept, not a
forpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:49 PM Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
> >
> > OK, I've updated the PR with a benchmark (in the main directory).
> >
> > On this benchmark I'm seeing about a 24% reduction in "user" CPU time,
> and a 8% re
OK, I've updated the PR with a benchmark (in the main directory).
On this benchmark I'm seeing about a 24% reduction in "user" CPU time, and
a 8% reduction in "system" CPU time. (Almost no reduction in wall-clock
time.)
Jeroen
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 11:32, Jero
arath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 3:43 PM Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
> >
> > Would there be interest in a variant of PQgetCopyData() that re-uses the
> same buffer for a new row, rather than allocating a new buffer on each
> iteration?
Would there be interest in a variant of PQgetCopyData() that re-uses the
same buffer for a new row, rather than allocating a new buffer on each
iteration?
I tried it on a toy benchmark, and it reduced client-side CPU time by about
12%. (Less of a difference in wall-clock time of course; the clien
10 matches
Mail list logo
