Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance
Date: 1998-03-16 06:24:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> >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.
> >
> >Comments?
> Please do not remove char2! Some users uses it for making an array of
> char.
> 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 WieckDate: 1998-03-16 07:28:38
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: PL/PgSQL discussion
Previous:From: t-ishiiDate: 1998-03-16 06:20:36
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group