| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Numeric version of factorial() |
| Date: | 2003-08-01 02:08:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3765.1059703681@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> What are your feelings about numeric argument vs. int4/int8 arguments?
Actually I think it'd be fine to take int8. We'd not be able to cope
with any larger input anyway, and the inner loop could be noticeably
faster if the control logic just deals with int.
We could leave the factorial(numeric) case open for a future
implementation that uses gamma, if anyone gets hot to do it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-08-01 03:31:20 | Re: Numeric version of factorial() |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-08-01 01:57:03 | Re: Numeric version of factorial() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Serguei Mokhov | 2003-08-01 02:23:46 | Russian NLS Update: psql |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-08-01 01:57:03 | Re: Numeric version of factorial() |