Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life : NEWS!!!

From: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)IDEALX(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life : NEWS!!!
Date: 2002-03-02 13:19:23
Message-ID: 20020302131924.6B44F1BBC@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On March 1, 2002 01:44 pm, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:
> I analyzed this source and found that NUMERIC types are much most
> expensive than simple INTEGER.
>
> I really fall on the floor.. :-( I was sure with as good quality PG is,
> when NUMERIC(x) columns are declared, It would be translated in INTEGER
> (int2, 4 or 8, whatever...).
>
> So, I made a pg_dump of the current database, made some perl
> remplacements NUMERIC(x,0) to INTEGER.
>
> I loaded the database and launched treatments: the results are REALLY
> IMPRESIVE: here what I have:

Any chance you can try it with the MONEY type? It does use integers to
store the data. It isn't really designed for general numeric use but it
would be interesting to see how it fares.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Doug McNaught 2002-03-02 14:02:12 Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life : NEWS!!!
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-03-02 03:21:22 Re: elog() patch