Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench

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>, 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: 2017-12-27 18:47:07
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Raúl Marín Rodríguez
<rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com> wrote:
> I've implemented the overflow checks and made some benchmarks and the ipow()
> version became slower except with some specific inputs (base 0 for example).
> It's true that the new auxiliary functions could be optimized, but I don't
> think it makes sense to keep working on them just to match pow() speed.
> I'm attaching both patches in case someone wants to have a look but I would
> go with the simpler solution (pgbench_pow_v10.patch).

Committed the simpler solution after fixing it so that it compiles.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-12-27 18:53:49 Re: How to Works with Centos
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-12-27 18:32:27 Converting plpgsql to use DTYPE_REC for named composite types