| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Gregory Stark' <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 'Postgres' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cool hack with recursive queries |
| Date: | 2008-11-21 21:25:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20081121212505.GC31533@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:11:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> >> I takes 2.6 second on my laptop. I think it is not so bad.
>
> > About 2.0 on my OS/X laptop. Could this be a problem on whatever
> > architecture/OS/compiler combo you have?
>
> Not everyone is using fast new laptops.
Possibly not, but this could be a way to flush out inconsistencies
among floating point units or, more importantly, implementations of
NUMERIC.
> This is a cool hack, agreed, but that doesn't make it a useful
> regression test. Whatever value it might have isn't going to repay
> the community-wide expenditure of cycles.
What's the slowest it runs?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-11-21 21:27:57 | Re: Cool hack with recursive queries |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-11-21 21:17:53 | Re: HEAD build failure on win32 mingw |