| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Weird function behavior from Sept 11 snapshot |
| Date: | 2000-09-12 15:45:08 |
| Message-ID: | 39BE4F84.94668245@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Your test suggests that the performance differential is *at most*
> 2X --- probably much less in real-world situations where the disk
> pages aren't already cached. I can't get excited about introducing
> platform-dependent behavior and overflow risk for that. If it were
> 10X then I would, but right now I think we are OK as is. I think
> any speedup efforts here would be better put into making NUMERIC
> ops go faster ...
Another followup: on 7.0.2, with different optimizations etc,
sum(float8) takes 1.95 seconds, rather than the 5.2 on the current tree.
I'd better look at the compilation optimizations; is there another
explanation for the factor of 2.6 difference (!!)?
So I'd expect int4 to be closer to float8 in performance than my
previous mail suggested.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | devik | 2000-09-12 15:56:50 | Re: Performance improvement hints |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-09-12 15:37:00 | Re: Weird function behavior from Sept 11 snapshot |