>I ran some timing tests to check the performance of varchar() vs char16.
>The results of the test indicate that there is no difference in
>performance (within the timing scatter of the tests):
>
>char16 vc(16)
> 0.99s 1.05s 1 row (this measures startup time, not types)
>39.29s 39.28s ~65000 rows
>
>The char2,4,8,16 types seem to have no value-added over the
>better-supported char(), varchar(), text types; I am considering
>removing them from the backend, and instead have the parser
>transparently translate the types into varchar() (or char() - I'm not
>certain which is a better match for the types) for v6.4. Applications
>would not have to be changed.
>
>Comments?
Please do not remove char2! Some users uses it for making an array of
char.
create table c(c char2[]);
Seems strange? Yes. Actually what he wanted to do was:
test=> create table c(c char[]);
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "["
--
Tatsuo Ishii
t-ishii@sra.co.jp
