Re: WIP: extensible enums
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-10-19T04:21:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- venum6.patch (text/x-patch) patch
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. Patch is attached. Alternatively this can be pulled from <git@github.com:adunstan/postgresql-dev.git> cheers andrew