From: darrenk@insightdist.com
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] char types gone.
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:10:05 -0500
Message-ID: <9803241510.AA33040@ceodev> (raw)
> > I don't know how big of a performance boost it provides in the cache, but
> > removing the functions associated with the char types shrank the pg_proc
> > table from 906 to 842 entries or a bit over 7%.
> >
> > Want to shrink it further? Of those remaining 842, _230_ are for the geometric
> > types! Throw in 25 more for the cash/money functions. Bloat city if you
> > never use these things. Thirty percent could be moved out to contrib and
> > not missed by most postgres users.
> >
>
> Yes, but if they are never referenced, the cache is empty for those
> types. Unless there is some performance change with their removal, why
> remove them? Disk space of binary?
How does the cache really work then? Does one pg disk block map to one buffer?
When you say "the cache is empty for those types.", what do you mean?
darrenk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: darrenk@insightdist.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] char types gone.
In-Reply-To: <9803241510.AA33040@ceodev>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox