On Saturday 20 November 2010 18:34:04 Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, while we're thinking about marginal improvements: instead of
> constructing the string backwards and then reversing it in-place,
> what about building it working backwards from the end of the buffer
> and then memmove'ing it down to the start of the buffer?
>
> I haven't tested this but it seems likely to be roughly a wash
> speed-wise. The reason I find the idea attractive is that it will
> immediately expose any caller that is providing a buffer shorter
> than the required length, whereas now such callers will appear to
> work fine if they're only tested on small values.
Tried that, the cost was measurable although not big (~3-5%)...
Greetings,
Andres