>
> >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 "["
Maybe we just need to fix char[].
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
