On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 September 2015 at 14:49, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> AFAICT, this kind of slowdown only happens in cases like this where a >>> very large number of digits are being returned. >> >> Can you clarify "very large"? >> > > I haven't done much performance testing because I've been mainly > focussed on accuracy. I just did a quick test of exp() for various > result sizes. For results up to around 50 digits, the patched code was > twice as fast as HEAD. After that the gap narrows until at around 250 > digits they become about the same speed, and beyond that the patched > code is slower. At around 450 digits the patched code is twice as > slow. > > My guess is that no one is actually using it for numbers that large.
well, I'm sold :-). (I certainly agree that a slow inaccurate answer is better than a fast inaccurate one, but it's nice to know that reasonable users of these functions won't be impacted) merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers