| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: extensible enum types |
| Date: | 2010-06-18 17:59:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4C1BB3ED.9090000@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> You are just bumping up the storage cost. Part of the attraction of enums is
>> their efficiency.
>>
>
> What's efficient about them? Aren't we using 4 bytes to store a value
> that will nearly always fit in 2, if not 1?
>
>
This was debated when we implemented enums. As between 1,2 and 4 there
is often not much to choose, as alignment padding makes it pretty much
the same. But any of them are more efficient than storing a numeric
value or the label itself.
Anyway, it might well be moot.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-18 18:06:07 | Re: extensible enum types |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-06-18 17:26:49 | Re: hstore ==> and deprecate => |