Re: A performance issue with Memoize - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: A performance issue with Memoize
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvpc=BgW0iSjvcQg-tf05Pd7-rcjccFzJsGiDe0srDG8Tg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to A performance issue with Memoize  (Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: A performance issue with Memoize
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 09:41, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > I've adjusted the comments to what you mentioned and also leaned out
> > the pretty expensive test case to something that'll run much faster
> > and pushed the result.
>
> drongo and fairywren are consistently failing the test case added
> by this commit.  I'm not quite sure why the behavior of Memoize
> would be platform-specific when we're dealing with integers,
> but ...

Maybe snprintf(buf, "%.*f", 0, 5.0 / 2.0); results in "3" on those
rather than "2"?

Looking at the code in fmtfloat(), we fallback on the built-in snprintf.

I can try changing the unique1 < 5 to unique1 < 4 to see that's more stable.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Zhang
Date:
Subject: Re: Functions to return random numbers in a given range
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: A performance issue with Memoize