| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Date: | 2017-12-05 19:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZiJbu6_ENKNfvRNDs-oDKN7EXyWB3c-RA8g2yD-3pzzA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Raúl Marín Rodríguez
<rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com> wrote:
> I've been giving a thought about this and I think we could reach the
> compromise
> of having a single function with 2 overloads:
> * pow(double, double) -> double: Uses C pow().
> * pow(int, int) -> double: Uses ipow() for positive exponents, and pow()
> for negative exponents.
>
> In both cases we'd return a double but we use the fast ipow if it's possible
> (which can be 20x faster), so at the cost of an extra cast if you need an
> int,
> we'd have a consistent API. Would this be acceptable?
It seems OK to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-05 20:07:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Walsender timeouts and large transactions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-05 19:44:27 | Re: es_query_dsa is broken |