Horton

Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez@carto.com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-12-27T18:47:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Raúl Marín Rodríguez
<rmrodriguez@carto.com> wrote:
> I've implemented the overflow checks and made some benchmarks and the ipow()
> version became slower except with some specific inputs (base 0 for example).
> It's true that the new auxiliary functions could be optimized, but I don't
> think it makes sense to keep working on them just to match pow() speed.
>
> I'm attaching both patches in case someone wants to have a look but I would
> go with the simpler solution (pgbench_pow_v10.patch).

Committed the simpler solution after fixing it so that it compiles.

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

Commits

  1. Add pow(), aka power(), function to pgbench.

  2. pgbench: Support double constants and functions.