On 2015-07-29 03:10:41 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> timestamp_out() = 2015-07-29 02:24:33.34 in 3.506000
> timestamp_out_old() = 2015-07-29 02:24:33.034 in 64.518000
> timestamp_out_af() = 2015-07-29 02:24:33.034 in 2.981000
>
> timestamp_out_old is master's version, the timestamp_out_af() is yours, and
> timestamp_out() is my one. times are in seconds to perform 100 million
> calls.
That looks good.
> So it appears your version is a bit faster than mine, but we're both about
> 20 times faster than the current one.
> Also mine needs fixed up as the fractional part is not padded the same as
> yours, but I doubt that'll affect the performance by much.
Worthwhile to finish that bit and try ;)
> My view: It's probably not worth going quite as far as you've gone for a
> handful of nanoseconds per call, but perhaps something along the lines of
> mine can be fixed up.
Yes, I agreee that your's is probably going to be fast enough.
> Have you thought about what to do when HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP is not defined?
I don't think it's actually important. The only difference vs float
timestamps is that in the latter case we set fsecs to zero BC.
Unless we want to slow down the common case it seems not unlikely that
we're going to end up with a separate slow path anyway. E.g. neither
your version nor mine handles 5 digit years (which is why I fell back to
the slow path in that case in my patch).
Regards,
Andres
