On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 14:39, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see 17% anywhere, but 3-5% is not bad. Did you see 3-5% only for the pi function, or did you see the same improvement also for the functions that I wrote ? I was getting a consistent result of 14-18 % on both of the VMs. Also, is your test machine running on Windows ? All the machines I tested were on Linux kernel (Ubuntu)
Below are my results for your pi_est_1() function. For this function, I am consistently getting 5-9 % improvement. I tested on 3 machines : gcc : 8.4.0. -O2 option OS : Ubuntu Bionic explain analyze select pi_est_1(10000000) 1. x86_64 laptop VM (Intel Core i7-8665U) HEAD : 2666 2617 2600 2630 Patched : 2502 2409 2460 2444 2. x86_64 VM (Xeon Gold 6151) HEAD : 1664 1662 1721 1660 Patched : 1541 1548 1537 1526 3. ARM64 VM (Kunpeng) HEAD : 2873 2864 2860 2861 Patched : 2568 2513 2501 2538 > > patch 0001 has sense and can help with code structure > patch 0002 it is little bit against simplicity, but for PLpgSQL with blocks > structure it is correct. Here, I moved the exec_stmt code into exec_stmts() function because exec_stmts() was the only caller, and that function is not that big. I am assuming you were referring to this point when you said it is a bit against simplicity. But I didn't get what you implied by "but for PLpgSQL with blocks structure it is correct" -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar Huawei Technologies
