Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Correction: datatypes are not "faster"

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.


-- Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering |

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Josh KupershmidtDate: 2010-09-03 03:06:05
Subject: Explanation of pg_authid.rolpassword
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-09-02 22:24:40
Subject: Re: Correction: datatypes are not "faster"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group