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