| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Correction: datatypes are not "faster" |
| Date: | 2010-09-02 22:56:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1283468202.3791.315.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> To this:
>
> On 32-bit operating systems, or when PostgreSQL is complied 32-bit,
On 32-bit architectures, or when PostgreSQL is compiled as 32-bit
binaries, operations using bigint may be slower than those with
---
The problem I have with words like significant is that bigint is not
noticeably slower. It is statistically slower (am I saying that right?).
Sure if you "test" it, bigint will come out slower. Real world suggests
that nobody is going to notice.
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2010-09-03 03:06:05 | Explanation of pg_authid.rolpassword |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-09-02 22:24:40 | Re: Correction: datatypes are not "faster" |