From: | CK Tan <cktan(at)vitessedata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(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 18:52:32 |
Message-ID: | CAJNt7=Y_Q9s2KRvRmXcU8JDmPmo6rwP8E13Z7DvFE8K-0NW8rg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Happy to contribute to that decision :-)
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-17 19:02:51 | Re: WIP: dynahash replacement for buffer table |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-17 18:36:55 | Re: Hash index creation warning |