| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: popcount |
| Date: | 2021-01-19 08:06:00 |
| Message-ID: | d33d668b-bf70-126d-9ca3-ad5a50488091@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-01-18 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> [ assorted nits ]
>
> At the level of bikeshedding ... I quite dislike using the name "popcount"
> for these functions. I'm aware that some C compilers provide primitives
> of that name, but I wouldn't expect a SQL programmer to know that;
> without that context the name seems pretty random and unintuitive.
> Moreover, it invites confusion with SQL's use of "pop" to abbreviate
> "population" in the statistical aggregates, such as var_pop().
I was thinking about that too, but according to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_weight>, popcount is an accepted
high-level term, with "pop" also standing for "population".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-01-19 08:21:15 | Re: Change default of checkpoint_completion_target |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-01-19 08:01:35 | Re: Is it worth accepting multiple CRLs? |