On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 04:21:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 02:53:10PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > I assume the conclusion from this email thread is that though the idea
> > > is interesting, the complexity added would not be worth the saving of a
> > > few bytes.
> >
> > Anyone do any testing?
> >
> > I'm also wondering if this would be useful to allow fields larger than
> > 1G.
>
> The submitter showed the pathological case where a single char was
> stored in a text field, and showed the reduced size (below). There were
> no performance numbers given. It seems like an edge case, especially
> since we have a "char" type that is a single byte.
Well, depending on how the patch works I could see it being valuable for
tables that have a number of 'short' text fields, where short is less
than 127 bytes.
I've got some tables like that I can test on, at least to see the size
difference. Not really sure what a valid performance test would be,
though...
I'm wondering if it would be worth trying to organize users to do
testing of stuff like this. I'm sure there's lots of folks who know how
to apply a patch and have test data that could benefit from patches like
this. (I'm assuming this patch didn't place any substantial performance
penalties into the backend...)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461