| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | CK Tan <cktan(at)vitessedata(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |
| Date: | 2014-10-17 18:25:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20141017182500.GF2075@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-17 13:12:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, that's pretty much cheating: it's too hard to disentangle what's
> coming from JIT vs what's coming from using a different accumulator
> datatype. If we wanted to depend on having int128 available we could
> get that speedup with a couple hours' work.
I think doing that when configure detects int128 would make a great deal
of sense. It's not like we'd save a great deal of complicated code by
removing the existing accumulator... We'd still have to return a
numeric, but that's likely lost in the noise cost wise.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-10-17 18:29:09 | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-17 18:21:55 | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |