Re: Fixed length data types issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixed length data types issue
Date: 2006-09-08 03:28:24
Message-ID: 2270.1157686104@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> The thing is, 100% extra space is cheap, but the processing power for
>> making the need for that extra space go away is not.

> That's simply untrue for most applications.

Well, it's true for some and not true for others: we hear from plenty of
people who seem to be more CPU-bound than IO-bound, and the former group
would not like a change along this line. The trick with any space-saving
change would be to not expend so many cycles as to make things a lot
worse for the CPU-bound crowd.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Browne 2006-09-08 03:44:26 Re: BUG #2600: dblink compile with SSL missing libraries
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-08 03:19:07 Re: large object regression tests