Re: int8 version of NUMERIC?

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
Cc: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)vulcanus(dot)its(dot)tudelft(dot)nl>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: int8 version of NUMERIC?
Date: 2004-01-12 15:28:16
Message-ID: 20040112152816.GA21007@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 21:53:09 +0700,
David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> wrote:
>
> My concern is that, the PostgreSQL docs says NUMERIC & DECIMAL is very
> slow compared to INT/BIGINT. Should I worry about that?

Most likely disk IO not cpu will be your bottleneck and the extra overhead
of numeric relative to int or float won't be a big deal.

Numeric is stored usingh based 10000 (at least in 7.4.x) and hence isn't
that horrible performance-wise (as compared to say storing it as an ascii
string).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2004-01-12 15:44:06 Re: no space left on device
Previous Message joseph speigle 2004-01-12 14:59:13 Re: PostgreeSQL C header files