Re: Vitesse DB call for testing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: CK Tan <cktan(at)vitessedata(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vitesse DB call for testing
Date: 2014-10-17 18:35:55
Message-ID: 5197.1413570955@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-10-17 13:12:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, that's pretty much cheating: it's too hard to disentangle what's
>> coming from JIT vs what's coming from using a different accumulator
>> datatype. If we wanted to depend on having int128 available we could
>> get that speedup with a couple hours' work.

> I think doing that when configure detects int128 would make a great deal
> of sense.

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself: use int128 if available,
else fall back on existing code path.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-17 18:36:55 Re: Hash index creation warning
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2014-10-17 18:29:09 Re: Vitesse DB call for testing