On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 20:55, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I took a quick look through these (just eyeball, didn't try to verify > your performance statements).
Thanks for looking! > I'm +1 on 0001 and 0002, but 0003 feels > a bit ad-hoc. It certainly *looks* weird for the allegedly faster > function to be handing off to the allegedly slower one. I also wonder > if we're leaving anything on the table by not exploiting > div_var_fast's weaker roundoff guarantees in this case. Should we > think about a more thoroughgoing redesign of these functions' APIs? Hmm, I'm not sure what kind of thing you had in mind. One thought that occurred to me was that it's a bit silly that exp_var() and ln_var() have to use a NumericVar for what could just be an int, if we had a div_var_int() function that could divide by an int. Then both div_var() and div_var_fast() could hand off to it for one and two digit divisors. Regards, Dean