Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time
Date: 2012-02-01 22:12:58
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> But if we want to put it on a diet, the first thing I'd probably be
> inclined to lose is the float4 specialization.  Some members of the
> audience will recall that I take dim view of floating point arithmetic
> generally, but I'll concede that there are valid reasons for using
> float8.  I have a harder time coming up with a good reason to use
> float4 - ever, for anything you care about.  So I would be inclined to
> think that if we want to trim this back a bit, maybe that's the one to
> let go.  If we want to be even more aggressive, the next thing I'd
> probably lose is the optimization of multiple sortkey cases, on the
> theory that single sort keys are probably by far the most common
> practical case.

I do find float4 to be useful, though it's possible that my understanding is flawed…

We end up using float to represent ratios in our database; things that really, honest to God do NOT need to be exact.

In most cases, 7 digits of precision (which AFAIK is what you're guaranteed with float4) is plenty, so we use float4 rather than bloat the database (though, since we're on 64bit hardware I guess that distinction is somewhat moot…).

Is there something I'm missing that would make float4 useless as compared to float8?
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell)               

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Duncan RanceDate: 2012-02-01 22:37:32
Subject: Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-02-01 21:43:34
Subject: Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group