From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
Date: | 2019-02-13 22:17:19 |
Message-ID: | 20190213221719.GA15976@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Feb-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It definitely is ... plans have changed from using IndexOnly scans to
> Seqscans, which is likely fallout from the visibilitymap_count() change.
I think the problem here is that "unsigned long" is 32 bits in this
machine:
checking whether long int is 64 bits... no
and we have defined pg_popcount64() like this:
static int
pg_popcount64_sse42(uint64 word)
{
return __builtin_popcountl(word);
}
so it's counting bits in the lower half of the uint64.
If that's correct, then I think we need something like this patch. But
it makes me wonder whether we need a configure test for
__builtin_popcountll() and friends. I wonder if there's any compiler
that implements __builtin_popcountl() but not __builtin_popcountll() ...
and if not, then the test for __builtin_popcountl() should be removed,
and have everything rely on the one for __builtin_popcount().
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
uint64-is-longlong.patch | text/x-diff | 1.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-13 22:33:22 | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-13 21:51:47 | Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar |