Re: Optimizing numeric SUM() aggregate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: amborodin(at)acm(dot)org, Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimizing numeric SUM() aggregate
Date: 2016-07-27 12:32:42
Message-ID: 28450.1469622762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> writes:
>> I don't think there is any reason for this new code to assume NBASE=10000

> There is a comment on line 64 stating that value 10000 is hardcoded
> somewhere else, any other value is not recommended and a bunch of code
> is left for historical reasons.

Doesn't matter: please use NBASE when you mean NBASE. 10000 is just a
magic number, and therefore bad coding style. For that matter, spelling
INT_MAX as 0x7FFFFFF is also not per project style.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vik Fearing 2016-07-27 12:52:54 Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-07-27 11:53:01 Re: handling unconvertible error messages