From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.5 release notes |
Date: | 2015-08-20 23:07:36 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRWqivR=FTW4uopxiYCafGEr0JKx3kjkaQ1ScWOdX2ZCg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I think we should really address this. Attached patch adds a new
> release note item for it. It also adds to the documentation that
> explains why users should prefer varchar(n)/text to character(n); the
> lack of abbreviated key support now becomes a huge disadvantage for
> character(n), whereas in previous versions the disadvantages were
> fairly minor.
>
> In passing, I updated the existing sort item to reflect that only
> varchar(n), text, and numeric benefit from the abbreviation
> optimization (not character types more generally + numeric), and added
> a note on the effectiveness of the abbreviation optimization alone.
A recent e-mail from Kaigai-san [1] reminded me of this item. I really
think this limitation of char(n) needs to be documented along the
lines I proposed here back in June. Benchmarks like TPC-H use char(n)
extensively, since it's faster in other systems. However, PostgreSQL
now has hugely inferior sort performance for that type as compared to
text/varchar(n). This needs to be highlighted.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAM3SWZRRCs6KAyN-bDsh0_pG=8xm3fvcF1X9dLsVd3wVbt1pHw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com#CAM3SWZRRCs6KAyN-bDsh0_pG=8xm3fvcF1X9dLsVd3wVbt1pHw@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-08-20 23:37:37 | Re: jsonb array-style subscripting |
Previous Message | Arthur Silva | 2015-08-20 22:58:27 | Re: 9.5 release notes |