On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 12:56, Greg Stark wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Uh, what? Why would an int8 need to be "dynamically allocated
> > repeatedly"?
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm extrapolating from a comment Tom Lane made that
> profiling showed that the bulk of the cost in count() went to allocating
> int8s. He commented that this could be optimized by having count() and sum()
> bypass the regular api. I don't have the original message handy.
I'm still confused: int64 should be stack-allocated, AFAICS. Tom, do you
recall what the issue here is?
-Neil
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
