| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Avg performance for int8/numeric |
| Date: | 2006-11-26 16:41:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1164559292.3778.22.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 18:57 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Also Neil suggested investigating using a single composite type
> {int8,
> numeric} for the {N,sum(X)} transition values. This could well be a
> faster way to do this (not sure how to make it work yet... but it
> sounds
> promising...).
If that is true it implies that any fixed length array is more expensive
than using a composite type. Is there something to be gained by changing
the basic representation of arrays, rather than rewriting all uses of
them?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Boreham | 2006-11-26 16:42:41 | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |
| Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2006-11-26 11:35:24 | "Optional ident" authentication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-26 17:14:36 | Re: [PATCHES] Avg performance for int8/numeric |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2006-11-25 05:57:51 | Re: [PATCHES] Avg performance for int8/numeric |