Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The skip table really should be constructed only once in > text_position_start and stored in TextPositionState. That would make a > big difference to the performance of those functions that call > text_position_next repeatedly: replace_text, split_text and text_to_array.
I Wrote: > Of course you are right. That will help for replace and the like. I'll > update the patch tonight. I've made and attached the changes Heikki recommended. Also updated benchmark spreadsheet. Here -> http://www.unixbeast.com/~fat/8.3_test_v1.2.xls Previously there was an error with "Test 6", the test that benchmarked replace(). I kept this one so not to affect the summary result in the new sheet. I then added the sheet "Replace Test" to show more accurate results. I had failed to notice that the optimizer was helping me out more than I wanted it to. My tested replace() script runs in 91% of the time than the 8.3 version. I've not tested with the CVS head. Now that the skip table is a member of TextPositionState, I was not quite sure if I should #define a size for it. It would certainly look neater, only the code that defines the skip table size in text_position_start assumes 256 elements. Any thoughts on this? David.
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches