Re: Query optimization using order by and limit

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Viscuso <michael(dot)viscuso(at)getcarbonblack(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query optimization using order by and limit
Date: 2011-09-22 03:22:53
Message-ID: 7868.1316661773@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Michael Viscuso <michael(dot)viscuso(at)getcarbonblack(dot)com> writes:
> Greg/Tom, you are correct, these columns should be modified to whatever
> is easiest for Postgres to recognize 64-bit unsigned integers. Would
> you still recommend bigint for unsigned integers? I likely read the
> wrong documentation that suggested bigint for signed 64-bit integers and
> numeric(20) for unsigned 64-bit integers.

Unsigned? Oh, hm, that's a bit of a problem because we don't have any
unsigned types. If you really need to go to 2^64 and not 2^63 then
you're stuck with numeric ... but that last bit is costing ya a lot.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gunnlaugur Þór Briem 2011-09-22 09:43:25 Re: Constraint exclusion on UNION ALL subqueries with WHERE conditions
Previous Message Michael Viscuso 2011-09-22 02:55:21 Re: Query optimization using order by and limit