On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a 30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -- numkeep=0 numsnaps=10 becomes 49.8ns from 37.6ns. That seems a bit shocking. Maybe you can claim that these operations aren't exactly hot spots, and so the fact that we remain in the same power-of-ten is sufficient. Is that the argument?
That's right. The fast path is fast, and that's important. The slow path becomes 30% slower, but that's acceptable.
- Heikki
