On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Leslie S Satenstein <lsatenstein(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> A good compromise is to perhaps consider the following.
>> The bigint type should only be used if the integer range is insufficient, because calculation with the latter is definitely faster.
> This doesn't seem to me to fix the basic problem, which is that "the
> latter" appears to refer to "integer range". You don't calculate with
> ranges, but with types. Maybe it should be
> The bigint type should only be used if the range of the integer
> type is insufficient, because the latter is definitely faster.
> I'm not that excited about making the text specify that calculations are
> faster, because on most modern machines the actual calculation speed
> difference is pretty minuscule. What's expensive about bigint is
> pushing around twice as much data and/or having to do palloc's.
Yeah, I was actually wondering whether the first step here might be to
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Leslie S Satenstein||Date: 2010-12-30 11:11:18|
|Subject: bigint and int|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-29 17:56:12|
|Subject: Re: Some comments about Julian Dates and possible bug. Please provide feedback. |