On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Friday 17 July 2009 16:40:40 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'm considering rewriting a postgres extension (GiST index bioseg) to make
it use version 1 calling conventions rather than version 0.
Does anyone have any ideas/opinions/statistics on what the performance
difference is between the two calling conventions?
Version 1 is technically slower if you count the number of instructions, but
considering that everyone else, including PostgreSQL itself, uses version 1,
and version 0 has been deprecated for years and will break on some
architectures, it should be a no-brainer.
Is that so?
Well, here's my problem. I have GiST index type called bioseg. I have
implemented the very same algorithm in both a Postgres GiST extension and
as a standalone Java program. In general, the standalone Java program
performs about 100 times faster than Postgres when running a large
index-based nested loop join.
I profiled Postgres a few weeks back, and found a large amount of time
being spent in fmgr_oldstyle.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Matthew Wakeling <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Anyway, running opannotate seems to make it clear that time *is* spent in
the gistnext function, but almost all of that is in children of the
function. Lots of time is actually spent in fmgr_oldstyle though.
So it'd be worth converting your functions to V1 style.
Are you saying that it would spend just as much time in fmgr_newstyle (or
whatever the correct symbol is)?
Matthew
--
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who its friends are. -- Kyle Hearn
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
