| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Date: | 2010-10-18 18:08:37 |
| Message-ID: | 22977.1287425317@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If you have want to work on it and prove it's going to be better, please
> do. I'm not convinced it will do a whole lot better than a binary search
> that in most cases will do no more than a handful of probes.
Yeah, that's a good point. There's a range of table sizes where hashing
is faster than binary search, but I'm not sure that typical enums will
fall into that range.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-18 18:17:31 | Re: create tablespace fails silently, or succeeds improperly |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-18 18:06:50 | Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types |