From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit size pgbench |
Date: | 2010-01-29 16:09:57 |
Message-ID: | 3717.1264781397@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Was looking for general feedback on whether the way I've converted this
> to use 64 bit integers for the account numbers seems appropriate, and to
> see if there's any objection to fixing this in general given the
> potential downsides.
In the past we've rejected proposed patches for pgbench on the grounds
that they would make results non-comparable to previous results. So the
key question here is how much this affects the speed. Please be sure to
test that on a 32-bit machine, not a 64-bit one.
> ! retval = (int64) strtol(res, &endptr, 19);
That bit is merely wishful thinking :-(
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-29 16:19:57 | Re: quoting psql varible as identifier |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-29 16:07:19 | Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?) |