Re: [HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-20 Thread Tom Lane
[ very off topic ] Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I already have to manually sync code (preproc.y <=> gram.y) and don't > like the idea of having to do it with a lot more code. I've been wondering for quite awhile if we couldn't find a way to avoid manually duplicating the backend g

Re: [HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-20 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:48:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not willing to do that for any very large number of functions; the > code clutter and runtime overhead would become significant. But then maintaining the same stuff twice is also a pretty hefty job, though not during runtime of course

Re: [HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-20 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How about some wrapper frunctions in the backend that just call their > helper functions in the lib? I'm not willing to do that for any very large number of functions; the code clutter and runtime overhead would become significant. I had some visions,

Re: [HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-20 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:49:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > With suitable #define hacking you could perhaps take care of the code's > dependencies on palloc/pfree ... but elog is harder, and I don't see any > realistic way to handle the backend's function-call conventions as > opposed to convention

Re: [HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-20 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I wonder if we could arrange things so the Numeric stuff wents out > of the backend. With suitable #define hacking you could perhaps take care of the code's dependencies on palloc/pfree ... but elog is harder, and I don't see any realistic way to ha

Re: [HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-20 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:51:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I've been amusing myself the last several evenings by working on a > reimplementation of the NUMERIC datatype, along the lines of previous > discussion (use base-1 digits instead of base-10 so that the number > of iterations of the inn

[HACKERS] Faster NUMERIC implementation

2003-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
I've been amusing myself the last several evenings by working on a reimplementation of the NUMERIC datatype, along the lines of previous discussion (use base-1 digits instead of base-10 so that the number of iterations of the inner loops decreases by a factor of about 4). It's not ready to com