Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists
От | Mark Dilger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5F255F0E-3F31-4753-87D7-3C4768A2B967@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Nov 18, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Attached is an updated version of the patch, adopting the psql describe > changes introduced by 471d55859c11b. > > regards > > -- > Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > <0001-multivariate-MCV-lists.patch.gz><0002-multivariate-histograms.patch.gz> Hello Tomas, After applying both your patches, I get a warning: histogram.c:1284:10: warning: taking the absolute value of unsigned type 'uint32' (aka 'unsigned int') has no effect [-Wabsolute-value] delta = fabs(data->numrows); ^ histogram.c:1284:10: note: remove the call to 'fabs' since unsigned values cannot be negative delta = fabs(data->numrows); ^~~~ 1 warning generated. Looking closer at this section, there is some odd integer vs. floating point arithmetic happening that is not necessarily wrong, but might be needlessly inefficient: delta = fabs(data->numrows); split_value = values[0].value; for (i = 1; i < data->numrows; i++) { if (values[i].value != values[i - 1].value) { /* are wecloser to splitting the bucket in half? */ if (fabs(i - data->numrows / 2.0) < delta) { /* let's assume we'll use this value for the split */ split_value = values[i].value; delta= fabs(i - data->numrows / 2.0); nrows = i; } } } I'm not sure the compiler will be able to optimize out the recomputation of data->numrows / 2.0 each time through the loop, since the compiler might not be able to prove to itself that data->numrows does not get changed. Perhaps you should compute it just once prior to entering the outer loop, store it in a variable of integer type, round 'delta' off and store in an integer, and do integer comparisons within the loop? Just a thought.... mark
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: