Hmm, now that I look back at them I can't remember why I thought it is
slower. Certainly using appendStringInfoCharMacro for every char is very
slow, but I could probably use appendStringInfoString and it should be as
fast as using the bytebuffer, they both do a straight forward memcpy.


On 6/25/05 4:27 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "Alon Goldshuv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A struct "bytebuffer" is used instead of a StringInfoData for storing the
>> line and attributes. A StringInfoData is actually really cool and useful,
>> but we don't really need it's formatting capabilities in COPY FROM (as far
>> as I know), and so the bytebuffer is more straightfoward and faster.
> Is it really faster than appendStringInfoString or
> appendBinaryStringInfo?
> regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to