Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> OK, but I think it's also going to cost you an extra syscache lookup,
> no?  You're going to have to check for this new support function
> first, and then if you don't find it, you'll have to check for the
> original one.  I don't think there's any higher-level caching around
> opfamilies to save our bacon here, is there?

[ shrug... ] If you are bothered by that, get off your duff and provide
the function for your datatype.  But it's certainly going to be in the
noise for btree index usage, and I submit that query parsing/setup
involves quite a lot of syscache lookups already.  I think that as a
performance objection, the above is nonsensical.  (And I would also
comment that your proposal with a handle is going to involve a table
search that's at least as expensive as a syscache lookup.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation at 2011-12-02 13:57:48 from Robert Haas

Responses

• Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation at 2011-12-02 19:35:32 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-12-02 15:56:57
	Subject: pg_upgrade and regclass
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-12-02 15:05:15
	Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement