| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: extensible enum types |
| Date: | 2010-06-21 16:28:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4C1F9322.3010600@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>> Adding cache
>> lookups for the enum rows to the comarison routines made a REINDEX on a
>> 1m row table where the index is on an enum column (the enum has 500
>> randomly ordered labels) jump from around 10s to around 70s.
>>
>
> Hmmm... that's bad, but I bet it's still less than the cost of comparing
> NUMERICs. Also, did you make any attempt to avoid repetitive cache
> lookups by storing a pointer in fn_extra (cf array comparisons)?
>
>
>
No. Will work on that. Thanks.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-06-21 16:37:46 | Re: deprecating =>, take two |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-21 16:20:59 | deprecating =>, take two |