Re: UUID - Data type inefficient

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Kless <jonas(dot)esp(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UUID - Data type inefficient
Date: 2008-07-10 15:21:49
Message-ID: 4876290D.5090104@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kless wrote:
> The new data type, UUID, is stored as a string -char(16)-:
>
> ------------
> struct pg_uuid_t
> {
> unsigned char data[UUID_LEN];
> };
> #define UUID_LEN 16
> ------------
>

No it is not. It is stored as 16 binary bytes. As text it won't fit into
16 bytes.

> but this it's very inefficient as you can read here [1].
>

What on earth makes you assume that MySQL performance characteristics
apply to PostgreSQL? If you want to show that our implementation is
inefficient, you need to produce PostgreSQL performance tests to
demonstrate it.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-10 15:25:54 Re: initdb in current cvs head broken?
Previous Message Aidan Van Dyk 2008-07-10 15:01:04 Re: WITH RECURSIVE updated to CVS TIP