From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <a(dot)kuzmenkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c |
Date: | 2018-10-03 18:01:35 |
Message-ID: | 3316.1538589695@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> So when using pg's snprintf() to print a single floating point number
> with precision, we get nearly a 10% boost.
I just tested that using my little standalone testbed, and I failed
to replicate the result. I do see that strfromd is slightly faster,
but it's just a few percent measuring snprintf.c in isolation --- in
the overall context of COPY, I don't see how you get to 10% net savings.
So I continue to think there's something fishy about your test case.
BTW, so far as I can tell on F28, strfromd isn't exposed without
"-D__STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_BFP_EXT__", which seems fairly scary;
what else does that affect?
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
hack-use-of-strfromd.patch | text/x-diff | 797 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-10-03 18:11:15 | Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-03 17:51:38 | Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c |