From: | Mitsumasa KONDO <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench |
Date: | 2014-09-11 13:56:00 |
Message-ID: | CADupcHX-mXEkZKgFu3zHtu4p3rC-5fyWK+i=O1Sqff1=erKKeA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-09-11 15:47 GMT+09:00 Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>:
>
> Hello Robert,
>
> I am not objecting to the functionality; I'm objecting to bolting on
>> ad-hoc operators one at a time. I think an expression syntax would
>> let us do this in a much more scalable way. If I had time, I'd go do
>> that, but I don't. We could add abs(x) and hash(x) and it would all
>> be grand.
>>
>
> Ok. I do agree that an expression syntax would be great!
Yes, it's not bad.
However, will we need some method of modulo calculation?
I don't think so much. I think most intuitive modulo calculation method is
floor modulo,
Because if we use the negative value in modulo calculation, it just set
negative value as both positive values,
it is easy to expect the result than others. This strong point is good for
benchmark script users.
But I don't have any strong opinion about this patch, not blocking:)
Best Regards
--
Mistumasa KONDO
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-11 13:57:35 | Re: Aussie timezone database changes incoming |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-11 13:51:53 | Re: Memory Alignment in Postgres |