Hi,
I have been experimenting with some base64 encoding/decoding implementation.
I find out that the one at http://code.google.com/p/stringencoders is the best
obtaining a 1.3 speedup vs the postgres one.
Do you think is worth to submit a patch that replaces the postgres base64
implementation
On 9/10/08, Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been experimenting with some base64 encoding/decoding implementation.
I find out that the one at http://code.google.com/p/stringencoders is the
best
obtaining a 1.3 speedup vs the postgres one.
Do you think is worth to submit
Marko Kreen wrote:
(Note: the b64encode there reads 3 chars at a time, b64decode int32
at a time.)
There are 2 killer problems:
- decode does not seem to handle architectures that segfault
on unaligned int32 accesses.
Out of curiosity - does this problem exist on any platform for which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:44:00AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
[...]
- decode does not seem to handle architectures that segfault
on unaligned int32 accesses.
Out of curiosity - does this problem exist on any platform for which
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:44:00AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
There are 2 killer problems:
- decode does not seem to handle architectures that segfault
on unaligned int32 accesses.
Out of curiosity - does this problem exist on any platform for which
PostgreSQL is currently ported and
