Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric

I have tested this patch but it generates regression failures.

There was some code drift, so I am attaching an updated version of the
patch, and the regression diffs. The 'four' column is an 'int4' so my
guess is that somehow the wrong aggregate is being called.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 11:08 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> >> - Modifies do_numeric_accum to have an extra bool parameter and does not
> >> calc sumX2 when it is false.
> >
> > I think it would be clearer to reorganize this function slightly, and
> > have only a single branch on "useSumX2". On first glance it isn't
> > obviously that transdatums[2] is defined (but unchanged) when useSumX2
> > is false.
> >
>
> Right - new patch attached that adds a new function do_numeric_avg_accum
> that only uses N and sum(X). This means I could amend the avg aggregates
> for numeric, int8 to have a initvalues of {0,0}.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +