| From: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, keisuke kuroda <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |
| Date: | 2020-02-13 16:25:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAE2gYzxnga06ktaqXw4E0K--qAU2pkyvyxPv0CG_3VLR5f7cKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > For most places it'd probably end up being easier to read and to
> > > > optimize if we just wrote them as
> > > > if (unlikely(isinf(result)) && !isinf(arg))
> > > > float_overflow_error();
> > > > and when needed added a
> > > > else if (unlikely(result == 0) && arg1 != 0.0)
> > > > float_underflow_error();
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > Cool. Emre, any chance you could write a patch along those lines?
>
> Yes, I am happy to do. It makes more sense to me too.
How about the one attached?
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Optimize-float-overflow-underflow-checks-v3.patch | text/x-patch | 29.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-13 16:26:45 | Re: Small docs bugfix: make it clear what can be used in UPDATE FROM and DELETE USING |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-13 16:04:03 | Re: assert pg_class.relnatts is consistent |