Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench

From: Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 00:45:04
Message-ID: CAM6_UM6fy2ZmUw=f5epciSfF5PWT-GiL_X3HULzcLVw6LbWf1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

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).

Regards,
--

*Raúl Marín Rodríguez *carto.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
pgbench_pow_v10.patch text/x-patch 4.3 KB
pgbench_pow_v10_ipow_overflow.patch text/x-patch 6.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-27 01:03:22 Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-27 00:27:40 Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256