From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New version of money type |
Date: | 2006-09-28 18:37:36 |
Message-ID: | 20060928183736.GZ24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy(at)druid(dot)net) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:44:24 -0400
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Numeric has been shown to be as good or better than money in I/O
> operations. Where money shines is in internal calculations.
Which may be an area which could be improved on for numeric, or even a
numeric64 type added for it. I'm not entirely sure there's a huge
amount to gain there either though...
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-09-28 18:37:57 | Re: contrib uninstall scripts need some love |
Previous Message | Henry B. Hotz | 2006-09-28 18:35:45 | Re: JAVA Support |