asuhan commented on pull request #11864: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11864#issuecomment-998084034
> > Though the microbenchmark result, I think it's unlikely a real issue in practice, and static thread_local looks to me not a good fix. > > I agree that `static thread_local` looks not very desirable. Why is `static thread_local` not good? I don't think I understand the two stage proposal, it sounds a lot like the previous version of the patch which used `static thread_local`, but creating a new `pcg64_fast` every time `random` is called instead of making it static. I haven't measured the overhead of that yet, but it might be significant in itself. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
