Re: WIP: extensible enums

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: extensible enums
Date: 2010-10-17 19:31:17
Message-ID: 4CBB4F05.2050601@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/17/2010 02:19 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> That makes me think maybe the "fast" and "slow" comparisons should
> both be done the same way, having a cache so that we notice
> immediately if we get a new value.
>
> Obviously that's not going to be as fast as the current "fast" method,
> but the question is, can it be made sufficiently close? I think the
> current sort+bsearch method is always going to be significantly
> slower, but perhaps a dedicated hash table algorithm might work.
>

Making that as fast as "Is this sorted? If yes, compare the two oids" or
even acceptably slower seems likely to be a challenge. I thought about
the sort of approach you suggest initially and didn't come up with
anything that seemed likely to work well enough.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-10-17 19:49:05 Re: WIP: extensible enums
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-10-17 19:30:47 Re: Extensions, this time with a patch