On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:46 AM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I think I've managed to narrow the performance gap to just about nothing
> but noise, though to do this the code is now a bit bigger. I've added a
> series of tests to see if the padding is > 0 and if it's not then I'm doing
> things the old way.
>
> I've also added a some code which does a fast test to see if it is worth
> while calling the padding processing function. This is just a simple if (*p
> <= '9'), I'm not completely happy with that as it does look a bit weird, but
> to compensate I've added a good comment to explain what it is doing.
>
> Please find attached the new patch ... version v0.5 and also updated
> benchmark results.
Are you sure this is the right set of benchmark results? This still
reflects a 15-18% slowdown AFAICS.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company