From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Butler <butlerm(at)middle(dot)net> |
Cc: | mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NUMERIC type benchmarks - CORRECTED |
Date: | 2001-04-16 01:28:09 |
Message-ID: | 29736.987384489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Butler <butlerm(at)middle(dot)net> writes:
> ... The correct numbers should be:
> Postgres PL/PGSQL original numeric: 14.8 seconds
> Postgres PL/PGSQL modified numeric: 14.0 seconds
> Postgres PL/PGSQL float8: 10.7 seconds
> GNU AWK: 2.5 seconds
> Oracle PL/SQL number: 2.0 seconds
> This means that Tom Lane was absolutely right - for the current numeric type
> implementation, palloc() overhead is not a dominant concern. A serious
> solution needs to change the internal format to use a larger base, as Tom
> suggested.
What do you get if you use int4 in PL/PGSQL? The above numbers look to
me like the real problem may be PL/PGSQL interpretation overhead, and
not the datatype at all...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2001-04-16 01:31:27 | Re: Hey guys, check this out. |
Previous Message | Mark Butler | 2001-04-16 00:38:52 | Int64 (long long) Supporting Compiler Requirement Status? |