Re: NUMERIC type benchmarks - CORRECTED
От | Mark Butler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: NUMERIC type benchmarks - CORRECTED |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3ADA3C43.A0752822@middle.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: NUMERIC type efficiency problem (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: NUMERIC type benchmarks - CORRECTED
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mario Weilguni wrote: > I tested that on a similar configuration (P-III 450) and got the same > results. When the addition is removed from the loop and replaced with a > simple assignment, the total execution time goes down to ~6.5 seconds. That > means that the modified numeric is nearly twice as fast, sure worth > considering that. I am embarrassed to admit I had an undeleted overloaded function that caused me to time the wrong function. The correct numbers should be: Postgres PL/PGSQL original numeric: 14.8 seconds Postgres PL/PGSQL modified numeric: 14.0 seconds Postgres PL/PGSQL float8: 10.7 seconds GNU AWK: 2.5 seconds Oracle PL/SQL number: 2.0 seconds This means that Tom Lane was absolutely right - for the current numeric type implementation, palloc() overhead is not a dominant concern. A serious solution needs to change the internal format to use a larger base, as Tom suggested. - Mark Butler
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: