On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:48:57PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Now, in most cases this won't matter, the sorting isn't performance > critical. But I don't think it's a good idea to standardize on a generally > slower pattern. > > Not that that's a good test, but I did quickly benchmark [1] this with > intarray. There's about a 10% difference in performance between using the > existing compASC() and one using > return (int64) *(const int32 *) a - (int64) *(const int32 *) b; > > > Perhaps we could have a central helper for this somewhere?
Maybe said helper could use __builtin_sub_overflow() and fall back to the slow "if" version only if absolutely necessary. The assembly for that looks encouraging, but I still need to actually test it... -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
