Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-09 Thread Tom Lane
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: here is an implementation of a set of user types: char3, char4, char10. Coupla quick comments on these: CREATE FUNCTION charNN_lt(charNN, charNN) RETURNS boolean AS '$libdir/fixchar' LANGUAGE 'c'; bool charNN_lt(char *a, char *b) {

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-09 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On 9 Oct 2002 at 9:32, Tom Lane wrote: Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: here is an implementation of a set of user types: char3, char4, char10. Coupla quick comments on these: CREATE FUNCTION charNN_lt(charNN, charNN) RETURNS boolean AS '$libdir/fixchar'

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-09 Thread Manfred Koizar
On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:32:50 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coupla quick comments on these: My first attempt on user types; thanks for the tips. These functions are dangerous as written, because they will crash on null inputs. I'd suggest marking them strict in the function

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-08 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:14:11AM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: On 7 Oct 2002 at 11:21, Tom Lane wrote: Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I say if it's a char field, there should be no indicator of length as it's not required. Just store those many characters straight

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MySQL 3.23.52 with innodb transaction support: 4 concurrent queries :- 257.36 ms 40 concurrent queries :- 35.12 ms Postgresql 7.2.2 4 concurrent queries :- 257.43 ms 40 concurrent queries :- 41.16 ms I find this

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-07 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On 7 Oct 2002 at 10:30, Tom Lane wrote: Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MySQL 3.23.52 with innodb transaction support: 4 concurrent queries:- 257.36 ms 40 concurrent queries :- 35.12 ms Postgresql 7.2.2 4 concurrent queries:-

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I say if it's a char field, there should be no indicator of length as it's not required. Just store those many characters straight ahead.. Your assumption fails when considering UNICODE or other multibyte character encodings.

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance

2002-10-07 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On 7 Oct 2002 at 11:21, Tom Lane wrote: Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I say if it's a char field, there should be no indicator of length as it's not required. Just store those many characters straight ahead.. Your assumption fails when considering UNICODE or other