Hello I worked with gdc' _Decimal* types last week
https://github.com/okbob/pgDecimal I tested it, and should to say, so implementation in gcc is not good - lack of lot of functionality, and our Money type is little bit faster :( Tomas Vondra play with own implementation, but I don't know any performance results. I didn't test intel or IBM implementation. Regards Pavel p.s. Patch for speedup aggregates is in 9.4 queue and helps lot. Probably with better work with memory we can increase speedup of numeric about 20% - what is operations with dynamic memory. 2013/6/12 Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com>: > Hi all > > Currently DECIMAL is an alias for NUMERIC, Pg's built-in arbitrary precision > and scale decimal type. I'd like to explore the possibility of using > hardware decimal floating point support in newer processors, compilers and C > libraries to enhance DECIMAL / NUMERIC performance. > > With the advent of _Decimal32, _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 support in IEEE > 754:2008 as supported in gcc in <float.h> TR24732 we have the opportunity > to make use of hardware representations of decimal floating point values and > hardware implementations of operations on them, gaining a potentially huge > performance boost in exchange for more limited precision and scale. I'd like > to gather ideas and suggestions about how we might approach this. > > The main thing I'm wondering is how/if to handle backward compatibility with > the existing NUMERIC and its DECIMAL alias, or whether adding new DECIMAL32, > DECIMAL64, and DECIMAL128 types would be more appropriate. I'd love to just > use the SQL standard types name DECIMAL if possible, and the standard would > allow for it (see below), but backward compat would be a challenge, as would > coming up with a sensible transparent promotion scheme from > 32->64->128->numeric and ways to stop undesired promotion. > > What I'm currently thinking of is using the same strategy we use right now > for FLOAT(n) where we select between float4 and float8 based on the > specified precision. We could do the same for DECIMAL; up to DECIMAL(94,7) > would become decimal32; up to DECIMAL(382,16) would become decimal64 and > DECIMAL128(34,6142); everything higher would become NUMERIC as currently. > NUMERIC would be unaffected. (Ideally we wouldn't have to do the type change > in the parser hack but that's not really possible so long as Pg doesn't > preserve typmods in calculations and intermediate outputs). > > According to TR24732 ( > http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1312.pdf) the _Decimal > family of types offer: > > _Decimal32: 7 coefficient digits, 10^97 to 10^-94 range. > _Decimal64: 16 coefficient digits, 10^385 to 10^-382 range. > _Decimal128 34 coefficient digits, 10^6145 to 10^-6142 range. > > There was a thread about this on -general some time ago: > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4cb26b16.7080...@postnewspapers.com.au > > that never went anywhere. Other discussion is mostly of use cases and is > more hypothetical, but outlines why they'd be useful: > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADLWmXVmne9t5x-hR-XGOxEyOWQX5BfZwc9Qb=xhsj_gkg_...@mail.gmail.com > > > In terms of how they fit in to the standard, the copy of the SQL:2008 draft > I have here says: > > * NUMERIC specifies the data type exact numeric, with the decimal precision > and scale specified by the > <precision> and <scale>. > * DECIMAL specifies the data type exact numeric, with the decimal scale > specified by the <scale> and > the implementation-defined decimal precision equal to or greater than the > value of the specified <precision>. > > Additionally: > > * For the <exact numeric type>s DECIMAL and NUMERIC, the maximum values of > <precision> and > of <scale> are implementation-defined. > > ... so it seems we'd be free to use the hardware types and could possibly > internally promote from smaller to larger decimal types as appropriate. > > My main concern is that even the largest fixed-size decimal can't store the > arbitrary precision and scale supported by Pg's NUMERIC, and people are used > to using DECIMAL as an alias for NUMERIC. We're in a bit of a BC trap, as > the spec would allow us to just use the hardware types, but we've already > provided support for a nearly unlimited (but much, much slower) type using > the same name. > > > Regarding the breadth of support, it looks like we could use gcc's built-in > types if available, and otherwise fall back to one of the portable decimal > floating point maths libraries. > > gcc 4.3 added _Decimal types, see http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html, > so it's ancient history for gcc. Hardware support isn't required; in fact > the real question would be whether gcc actually uses the hardware operations > where they're supported. I'll need to dig into that. > > For Windows, MSVC doesn't support the types as built-ins. There's the Intel > Decimal Floating Point Library > (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-decimal-floating-point-math-library, > also available from http://www.netlib.org/misc/intel/) to provide support as > a library. IBM's "decnumber" libraray is another possible alternative. > > LLVM's clang does not support those types according to the manual: "clang > does not support decimal floating point types (_Decimal32 and friends) or > fixed-point types (_Fract and friends); nobody has expressed interest in > these features yet, so it’s hard to say when they will be implemented." > (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html). The Intel library or IBM > decnumber should work, but would need to be checked. > > See > http://www.ac.usc.es/arith19/sites/default/files/3670a225-spec-session-DFP-paper2.pdf > for (somewhat old) details on Intel processor support. There's also support > in POWER6 and System z10 according to comments on the Intel library article. > > > So ... thoughts/comments? Think this is a reasonable avenue to pursue? > > I'd be inclined to start by adding basic DECIMAL32, DECIMAL64 and DECIMAL128 > support with an implicit promotion to NUMERIC available. After that the idea > would be to progressively add operators and functions that worked directly > on these types, letting the numeric versions handle what wasn't implemented > for decimal yet. Finally I'd want to change the parser's interpretation of > qualified DECIMAL to translate to DECIMAL32/64/128 as appropriate. > > This isn't work I have any funded time for, so to the degree I could do it > at all it'd be something I'd be taking on as a project out of personal > interest and for learning. That means "not fast". > > -- > Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
