> >I ran some timing tests to check the performance of varchar() vs char16.
> >The results of the test indicate that there is no difference in
> >performance (within the timing scatter of the tests):
> >char16 vc(16)
> > 0.99s 1.05s 1 row (this measures startup time, not types)
> >39.29s 39.28s ~65000 rows
> >The char2,4,8,16 types seem to have no value-added over the
> >better-supported char(), varchar(), text types; I am considering
> >removing them from the backend, and instead have the parser
> >transparently translate the types into varchar() (or char() - I'm not
> >certain which is a better match for the types) for v6.4. Applications
> >would not have to be changed.
> Please do not remove char2! Some users uses it for making an array of
> create table c(c char2);
> Seems strange? Yes. Actually what he wanted to do was:
> test=> create table c(c char);
> ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "["
Maybe we just need to fix char.
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 1998-03-16 07:28:38|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: PL/PgSQL discussion|
|Previous:||From: t-ishii||Date: 1998-03-16 06:20:36|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance |