Re: Numeric version of factorial() - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Gavin Sherry
Subject Re: Numeric version of factorial()
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0308011330030.25534-200000@linuxworld.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Numeric version of factorial()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Numeric version of factorial()  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> > What are your feelings about numeric argument vs. int4/int8 arguments?
>
> Actually I think it'd be fine to take int8.  We'd not be able to cope
> with any larger input anyway, and the inner loop could be noticeably
> faster if the control logic just deals with int.
>
> We could leave the factorial(numeric) case open for a future
> implementation that uses gamma, if anyone gets hot to do it.
>

Attached is a revised patch based on your Tom's comments. It removes
int[248]fac(), modifies regression tests (which referenced int4fac()), and
implements a much cleaned numeric_fac().

>             regards, tom lane
>

Thanks,

Gavin

Attachment

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib regression test update
Next
From: Lee Kindness
Date:
Subject: 7.4 COPY BINARY Format Change