| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Amonson, Paul D" <paul(dot)d(dot)amonson(at)intel(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Shankaran, Akash" <akash(dot)shankaran(at)intel(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512 |
| Date: | 2024-04-04 03:28:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvoM7O8aQqfH6Z-D_w7mf=pG94oqDm+UGTfPMBgaNoh+gQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 11:50, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If we can verify this approach won't cause segfaults and can stomach the
> regression between 8 and 16 bytes, I'd happily pivot to this approach so
> that we can avoid the function call dance that I have in v25.
>
> Thoughts?
If we're worried about regressions with some narrow range of byte
values, wouldn't it make more sense to compare that to cc4826dd5~1 at
the latest rather than to some version that's already probably faster
than PG16?
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-04-04 03:45:16 | Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-04-04 03:22:17 | Re: Extension Enhancement: Buffer Invalidation in pg_buffercache |