On 10/28/2014 04:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Moving on to other issues, isn't 128 bits too small to store the squares
of the processed numbers? That could overflow..
Yeah, which is why stddev_*(int8) and var_*(int8) still have to use
Numeric in the aggregate state. For the int2 and int4 v
On 10/28/2014 04:47 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 10/28/2014 03:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The patch doesn't do division with the 128-bit integers. It only does
addition and multiplication. Those are pretty straightforward to implement.
The patch uses division when converting from __int
On 10/28/2014 03:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The patch doesn't do division with the 128-bit integers. It only does
addition and multiplication. Those are pretty straightforward to implement.
The patch uses division when converting from __int128_t to Numeric.
- Andreas
--
Sent via pgsq
On 10/28/2014 04:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
It wouldn't be too hard to just do:
struct {
int64 high_bits;
uint64 low_bits;
} pg_int128;
and some macros for the + - etc. operators. It might be less work than
trying to deal with the portability issues of a
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> It wouldn't be too hard to just do:
> struct {
> int64 high_bits;
> uint64 low_bits;
> } pg_int128;
> and some macros for the + - etc. operators. It might be less work than
> trying to deal with the portability issues of a native C datatype for this.
-1.
On 2014-10-28 15:54:30 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 03:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-10-28 11:05:11 -0200, Arthur Silva wrote:
> >>On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson
> >>As far as I'm aware int128 types are supported on every major compiler when
> >>com
On 10/28/2014 03:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-28 11:05:11 -0200, Arthur Silva wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson
As far as I'm aware int128 types are supported on every major compiler when
compiling for 64bit platforms. Right?
Depends on what you call major. I
On 10/28/2014 02:05 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
As far as I'm aware int128 types are supported on every major compiler
when compiling for 64bit platforms. Right?
Both gcc and clang support __int128_t, but I do not know about other
compilers like icc and MSVC.
Andreas
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 2014-10-28 11:05:11 -0200, Arthur Silva wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson
> As far as I'm aware int128 types are supported on every major compiler when
> compiling for 64bit platforms. Right?
Depends on what you call major. IIRC some not that old msvc versions
don't f
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There was recently talk about if we should start using 128-bit integers
> (where available) to speed up the aggregate functions over integers which
> uses numeric for their internal state. So I hacked together a patch for this
> to
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There was recently talk about if we should start using 128-bit integers
> (where available) to speed up the aggregate functions over integers which
> uses numeric for their internal state. So I hacked together a patch for
> this
Hi,
There was recently talk about if we should start using 128-bit integers
(where available) to speed up the aggregate functions over integers
which uses numeric for their internal state. So I hacked together a
patch for this to see what the performance gain would be.
Previous thread:
http
12 matches
Mail list logo
