| From: | Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Date: | 2017-12-27 00:45:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAM6_UM6fy2ZmUw=f5epciSfF5PWT-GiL_X3HULzcLVw6LbWf1g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I've implemented the overflow checks and made some benchmarks and the
ipow() version became slower except with some specific inputs (base 0 for
example). It's true that the new auxiliary functions could be optimized,
but I don't think it makes sense to keep working on them just to match
pow() speed.
I'm attaching both patches in case someone wants to have a look but I would
go with the simpler solution (pgbench_pow_v10.patch).
Regards,
--
*Raúl Marín Rodríguez *carto.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pgbench_pow_v10.patch | text/x-patch | 4.3 KB |
| pgbench_pow_v10_ipow_overflow.patch | text/x-patch | 6.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-27 01:03:22 | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-27 00:27:40 | Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |