From: | Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | joel(at)compiler(dot)org |
Cc: | dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simplifying width_bucket_numeric() |
Date: | 2024-07-07 13:44:56 |
Message-ID: | CAF+pBj84cYOHgDQ5nnBVHNdcj2d4GWDebQXH9TKYdW-eJ0WQ8g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
🔥
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024, 7:44 AM Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2024, at 17:36, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > In the numeric width_bucket() code, we currently do the following:
> ..
> > Instead, this can be done more simply and efficiently, using division
> > with truncation as follows:
> ..
> >
> > Patch attached. I didn't bother with any new test cases, since there
> > appears to be sufficient coverage already.
> >
> > As a quick performance/correctness test, I ran the following:
> >
> > SELECT setseed(0);
> > CREATE TEMP TABLE t AS
> > SELECT random(-4.000000, 8.000000) op,
> > random(-4.100000, -2.000000) b1,
> > random(6.000000, 8.100000) b2,
> > random(1, 15) c
> > FROM generate_series(1, 10000000);
> >
> > SELECT hash_array(array_agg(width_bucket(op, b1, b2, c))) FROM t;
> > -- Result not changed by patch
>
> Same hash_array on all my three machines:
>
> hash_array
> -------------
> -1179801276
> (1 row)
>
> > SELECT sum(width_bucket(op, b1, b2, c)) FROM t;
> > Time: 3658.962 ms (00:03.659) -- HEAD
> > Time: 3089.946 ms (00:03.090) -- with patch
>
> Significant improvement on all my three machines:
>
> /*
> * Apple M3 Max
> */
>
> Time: 2255.154 ms (00:02.255) -- HEAD
> Time: 1830.985 ms (00:01.831)
> Time: 1826.190 ms (00:01.826)
> Time: 1831.020 ms (00:01.831)
> Time: 1832.934 ms (00:01.833)
> Time: 1843.061 ms (00:01.843)
>
> Time: 1957.062 ms (00:01.957) -- simplify-width_bucket_numeric.patch
> Time: 1545.121 ms (00:01.545)
> Time: 1541.621 ms (00:01.542)
> Time: 1536.388 ms (00:01.536)
> Time: 1538.721 ms (00:01.539)
> Time: 1592.384 ms (00:01.592)
>
> /*
> * Intel Core i9-14900K
> */
>
> Time: 2541.959 ms (00:02.542) -- HEAD
> Time: 2534.803 ms (00:02.535)
> Time: 2532.343 ms (00:02.532)
> Time: 2529.408 ms (00:02.529)
> Time: 2528.600 ms (00:02.529)
>
> Time: 2107.901 ms (00:02.108) -- simplify-width_bucket_numeric.patch
> Time: 2095.413 ms (00:02.095)
> Time: 2093.985 ms (00:02.094)
> Time: 2093.910 ms (00:02.094)
> Time: 2094.935 ms (00:02.095)
>
> /*
> * AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
> */
>
>
> Time: 2226.498 ms (00:02.226) -- HEAD
> Time: 2238.083 ms (00:02.238)
> Time: 2239.075 ms (00:02.239)
> Time: 2238.488 ms (00:02.238)
> Time: 2238.166 ms (00:02.238)
>
> Time: 1853.382 ms (00:01.853) -- simplify-width_bucket_numeric.patch
> Time: 1842.630 ms (00:01.843)
> Time: 1828.309 ms (00:01.828)
> Time: 1844.654 ms (00:01.845)
> Time: 1828.520 ms (00:01.829)
>
> Regards,
> Joel
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2024-07-07 14:22:48 | Re: Incorrect results from numeric round() and trunc() |
Previous Message | wenhui qiu | 2024-07-07 13:32:24 | Re: Optimize commit performance with a large number of 'on commit delete rows' temp tables |