Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data
Date: 2005-11-03 18:02:13
Message-ID: 1131040933.8300.1984.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:36 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> Well, it could also be argued that DW apps could often get away with
> using floating point types, even where the primary source needs to be in
> fixed point for accuracy, and that could generate lots of savings in
> speed and space. But I guess everybody gets to make their own choices.

I've never seen a requirement for a DW to be less accurate than the
primary source. Its almost always the other way around.

If its money, then no. If its other physical measurements, then yes.
There's lots of scientific apps that wouldn't use NUMERICs much, but
there's enough apps that do for me to care.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-11-03 18:18:55 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-03 17:55:37 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rename the members of CommandDest enum so

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-11-03 18:18:55 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data
Previous Message mark 2005-11-03 17:28:02 Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data