On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 09:05:59PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Yeah, although the difference is minimal. We could probably construct a > benchmark where #2 wins, but I think these queries are fairly realistic. > So I'd just go with #1.
Nice results. Using your benchmarks it indeed looks like patch 1 is a winner here. > Code-wise I think the patches are mostly fine, although the comments > might need some proof-reading. > > 1) I wasn't really sure what a "nibble" is, but maybe it's just me and > it's a well-known term. > > 2) First byte use lower -> First byte uses lower > > 3) nibble contain upper -> nibble contains upper > > 4) to preven possible uncertanity -> to prevent possible uncertainty > > 5) I think we should briefly explain why memmove would be incompatible > with pglz, it's not quite clear to me. > > 6) I'm pretty sure the comment in the 'while (off < len)' branch will be > badly mangled by pgindent. > > 7) The last change moving "copy" to the next line seems unnecessary. Patch 1 has a typo as well here: + * When offset is smaller than lengh - source and s/lengh/length/ Okay, if we are reaching a conclusion here, Tomas or Peter, are you planning to finish brushing the patch and potentially commit it? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
