* Luke Lonergan (LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com) wrote:
> Though this may be the kiss of death, I favor a 64 bit float version of money. It's more terse than numeric and a *lot* faster when performing numeric operations because it would use a cpu intrinsic operand.
What about just having a numeric64, or changing numeric to support
moving to 64bit sizes when necessary and supported by the platform?
Exactly how much faster would it *really* be? Have you tested it? At
what point does it become a 'winning' change?
I'm not sure about 'money' in general but these claims of great
performance improvments over numeric just don't fly so easily with me.
numeric isn't all *that* much slower than regular old integer in the
tests that I've done.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Wong||Date: 2006-09-28 16:50:14|
|Subject: Re: Bitmap index status|
|Previous:||From: Luke Lonergan||Date: 2006-09-28 16:40:04|
|Subject: Re: New version of money type|