wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Now that we know numeric is working, can we make the test run faster in
>> the default mode?
> It is already down to 100 digits after the decimal point. I
> don't want to lower it too much, but maybe 30 or 50 are
> enough too - no?
Since multiply and so on are presumably O(N^2), cutting the precision
to 30 might cut the runtime by almost a factor of 10.
Jan probably has a better idea than the rest of us whether a test of
100, or 30, or 10 digits is likely to expose bugs that would not be
exposed by a test with less precision --- that depends on whether the
code has any internal behavioral dependence on the length of numeric
values. The numeric test certainly is a lot slower than the others, so
I think it would be a good idea to trim the precision as much as we can.
Anyone who's actually touching the numeric code could and should run
the "bigtest", but the rest of us just want to know whether we've got
porting problems. Seems like it shouldn't take 100-digit tests to
expose porting problems.
regards, tom lane
