| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
| Date: | 2020-01-04 17:01:48 |
| Message-ID: | 6387.1578157308@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> OTOH, for numeric inputs, this could easily end up needing many
> thousands of divisions and it's not hard to construct inputs that take
> minutes to compute, although this is admittedly with ridiculously
> large inputs (~10^130000), and AFAICS, the performance is OK with
> "normal" sized inputs. Should we put a limit on the size of the
> inputs?
No, but a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in the loop would be well-advised,
if there's not one already inside the called functions.
> There are apparently more efficient algorithms, but I think that
> should definitely be kept out of scope for this patch.
+1
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-04 17:13:44 | Re: Errors when update a view with conditional-INSTEAD rules |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-01-04 16:50:47 | allow disabling indexscans without disabling bitmapscans |