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 >decl

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/fix

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, cha

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

2002-10-07 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 charact

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 oth

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 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: > 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