Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY_ywv1zXi_2cOCB7rmvTSweqdHbN+5jj+hjGHLaJZmpA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench  (Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez@carto.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Raúl Marín Rodríguez
<rmrodriguez@carto.com> wrote:
>> If a double is always returned, I'm wondering whether keeping the ipow
>> version makes much sense: In case of double loss of precision, the precision
>> is lost, too bad, and casting back to int won't bring it back.
>
> I've kept it because knowing that both are ints enables not making a lot of
> checks (done in math.h pow) so it's way faster. In my system it's 2-3ns vs
> ~40ns. I'm willing to settle for using just pow() if that makes it clearer.

This version looks good to me, except that I wonder if we should try
to switch to the floating-point version if the integer version
would/does overflow.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we nonblocking open FIFO files in COPY?