Re: NUMERIC type benchmarks - CORRECTED

From: Mark Butler <butlerm(at)middle(dot)net>
To: mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: NUMERIC type benchmarks - CORRECTED
Date: 2001-04-16 00:26:43
Message-ID: 3ADA3C43.A0752822@middle.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Mario Weilguni wrote:

> I tested that on a similar configuration (P-III 450) and got the same
> results. When the addition is removed from the loop and replaced with a
> simple assignment, the total execution time goes down to ~6.5 seconds. That
> means that the modified numeric is nearly twice as fast, sure worth
> considering that.

I am embarrassed to admit I had an undeleted overloaded function that caused
me to time the wrong function. 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.

- Mark Butler

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Butler 2001-04-16 00:38:52 Int64 (long long) Supporting Compiler Requirement Status?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-04-15 18:18:47 Re: Fast Forward (fwd)