From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |
Date: | 2015-09-02 18:50:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYw7YCgMUiSfo+6MapfN93=bFhEA2iuYHpmaVvSXM29Rw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> My thought is that there's a fair amount of places where we do string
> comparison for not a great reason. Perhaps a better example is data that
> comes back from a trigger; AFTER/BEFORE, INSERT/UPDATE/..., which is more
> expensive to setup the variables for (strdup a fixed string, which means a
> palloc), and then comparisons are done as text varlena (iirc).
>
> Instead if this information came back as an ENUM the variable would be a
> simple int as would the comparison. We'd still have a raw string being
> parsed in the function body, but that would happen once during initial
> compilation and it would be replaced with an ENUM value.
>
> For RAISE, AFAIK we still end up converting the raw string into a varlena
> CONST, which means a palloc. If it was an ENUM it'd be converted to an int.
>
> If we're worried about the overhead of the enum machinery we could create a
> relcache for system enums, but I suspect that even without that it'd be a
> win over the string stuff. Especially since I bet most people run UTF8.
I agree with Pavel on this one: creating an extra type here is going
to cause more pain than it removes.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-02 18:57:54 | Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2015-09-02 18:49:13 | Re: Allow a per-tablespace effective_io_concurrency setting |