Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15405.1538798355@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: > Tom> Oh yeah? Where's the code for this? > Upstream code is at https://github.com/ulfjack/ryu > ... > I attach the patch I've used for testing, which has these changes from > upstream Ryu: Thanks. Just scanning through the code quickly, I note that it assumes IEEE float format, which is probably okay but I suppose we might want a configure switch to disable it (and revert to platform sprintf). I couldn't immediately figure out if it's got endianness assumptions; but even if it does, that'd likely only affect the initial disassembly of the IEEE format, so probably not a huge deal. I wonder which variant of the code you were testing (e.g. HAS_UINT128 or not). There's a pretty large gap between this code and PG coding conventions, both as to layout and portability rules. I wonder if we'd be better off to implement the algorithm afresh instead of whacking this particular code past the point of unrecognizability. > The regression tests for > float8 fail of course since Ryu's output format differs (it always > includes an exponent, but the code for that part can be tweaked without > touching the main algorithm). Yeah, one would hope. But I wonder whether it always produces the same low-order digits, and if not, whether people will complain. We just had somebody griping about a change in insignificant zeroes in timestamp output :-(. Still, seems worth further investigation. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: