Re: Lookup penalty for VARIADIC patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Lookup penalty for VARIADIC patch
Date: 2008-07-16 03:33:42
Message-ID: 4274.1216179222@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are two ways we
>> could do it: a bool column that is TRUE if the function is variadic,
>> or an oid column that is the variadic array's element type, or zero
>> if the function isn't variadic. The second would take more space but
>> would avoid having to do a catalog lookup to get the element type in
>> the case that the function is indeed variadic. I'm leaning to the
>> second way but wanted to know if anyone objected?

> If you go the second route, I'd vote for it being NULL if the
> function isn't variadic, unless that would play hell with the C side
> of the catalog code...

Getting rid of the check for null is *exactly* the point here --- AFAICT
that's what's eating all the time in the existing code.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sushant Sinha 2008-07-16 03:54:01 Re: [GENERAL] Fragments in tsearch2 headline
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-16 03:26:18 Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3