From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
Date: | 2010-10-19 16:53:01 |
Message-ID: | 4CBDCCED.7040503@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/19/2010 12:21 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2010 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could possibly deal with enum types that follow the existing
>> convention if we made the cache entry hold a list of all the original,
>> known-to-be-sorted OIDs. (This could be reasonably compact and cheap to
>> probe if it were represented as a starting OID and a Bitmapset of delta
>> values, since we can assume that the initial set of OIDs is pretty close
>> together.) But we have to have that cache entry, and we have to consult
>> it on every single comparison, so it's definitely going to be slower
>> than before.
>>
>> So I'm thinking the comparison procedure goes like this:
>>
>> 1. Both OIDs even?
>> If so, just compare them numerically, and we're done.
>>
>> 2. Lookup cache entry for enum type.
>>
>> 3. Both OIDs in list of known-sorted OIDs?
>> If so, just compare them numerically, and we're done.
>>
>> 4. Search the part of the cache entry that lists sort positions.
>> If not both present, refresh the cache entry.
>> If still not present, throw error.
>>
>> 5. Compare by sort positions.
>>
>> Step 4 is the slowest part but would be avoided in most cases.
>> However, step 2 is none too speedy either, and would usually
>> be required when dealing with pre-existing enums.
>
> OK, I've made adjustments that I think do what you're suggesting.
>
>
I've discovered and fixed a couple more bugs in this. I have one or two
more things to fix and then I'll send a new patch.
Meanwhile, I've been testing a database that was upgraded from 9.0, so
it has a lot of odd-numbered Oids. It's not really clear from
performance testing that the bitmap is a huge win, or even a win at all.
(Of course, my implementation might suck too.) I'll continue testing.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-19 17:09:10 | Location for "makeWholeRowVar()"? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-19 16:36:42 | Re: Issues with two-server Synch Rep |