Re: Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25576.1151690366@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as (mark@mark.mielke.cc) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
mark@mark.mielke.cc writes: > It depends how it is used. If the memory location needs to be > allocated, for the value to be used only a few times, the overhead of > allocation and redirection can be more expensive. If many though, than > the reduction in value copying can make the pointer faster. 64-bytes, > and 128-bytes are just on the line of not being clearly one or the > other. It was just a thought though. The PostgreSQL API seemed pretty > fixed the last time I looked at this stuff. Yeah, changing the definition of Datum is probably out of the question ;-) as it'd break not only most of core but every external module in existence. Anything bigger than a "long" has to be pass-by-reference. The efficiency argument is wrong anyway, as we've optimized the heck out of those code paths; very little actual copying happens unless a new value is getting generated. Pushing pointers around is definitely faster than pushing multiword values around. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: