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

From Raúl Marín Rodríguez
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
Date
Msg-id CAM6_UM7J4Jo+6OFdQg4KOCzHa8+DP3r-PAajkY-UX4zehsr+Dw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Fabien,

Thanks for the review.

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.

In the doc, I'm not sure that "Numeric" brings anything. "Exponentiation" would be enough.
Done. 

Also, in pg I just noticed that POW is a shorthand for POWER. Maybe both should be supported? Or not.
I've never used power instead of pow, but I've added for compatibility shake.

Attached the  updated patch.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:

Hello Raúl,

v7 needs a rebase.

Also, you might try to produce a version which is compatible with Robert's
constraints.

My 0.02€ on this new version: Applies cleanly, compiles and works.

I cannot say that I like it more than the previous version.

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.

In the doc, I'm not sure that "Numeric" brings anything. "Exponentiation" would be enough.

Also, in pg I just noticed that POW is a shorthand for POWER. Maybe both should be supported? Or not.

--
Fabien.



--
Raúl Marín Rodríguez 
carto.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Next
From: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables