| From: | Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Date: | 2017-12-05 12:44:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAM6_UM5iSV2akq5xZDNHzf4G4n=PBg-vvmruA2ri7ws8e6CzYA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all,
I've been giving a thought about this and I think we could reach the
compromise
of having a single function with 2 overloads:
* pow(double, double) -> double: Uses C pow().
* pow(int, int) -> double: Uses ipow() for positive exponents, and pow()
for negative exponents.
In both cases we'd return a double but we use the fast ipow if it's possible
(which can be 20x faster), so at the cost of an extra cast if you need an
int,
we'd have a consistent API. Would this be acceptable?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-12-05 13:00:09 | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-12-05 12:24:41 | Re: es_query_dsa is broken |