| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Date: | 2005-11-09 22:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1131575044.8300.2148.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 11:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 10:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think we could make it go by cramming the sign and
> >> the high-order dscale bit into the first NumericDigit --- the
> >> digit itself can only be 0..9999 so there are a couple of bits
> >> to spare.
>
> > I've got a working version of the code using the above scheme,
>
> Really? After I woke up a bit more I realized there was only one bit
> and change to spare, not two, so I don't see how it would work.
Not sure why you think that. Seems to fit....
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-09 22:42:32 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Previous Message | Gevik babakhani | 2005-11-09 22:24:01 | Install issue on Windows and directory permission |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-09 22:42:32 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-11-09 20:57:09 | Re: return can contains any row or record functions |