From: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: decimal(5) vs int8. Which more efficient. |
Date: | 2002-03-09 15:54:20 |
Message-ID: | 20020309105218.I30534-100000@zoraida.natserv.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > What would be more efficient for storing a value that is 5 Bytes long?
> > decimal(5) or int8?
> > Does decimal(5) actually uses up only 5 bytes? Does that cause any
> > problems?
>
> int8 wins on all counts afaik. decimal() and numeric() store things as
> quasi-BCD and is less dense than a true binary storage type.
I decided to find a way to store the number, a key, in 4 bytes. Not what I
wanted, but... given the "issues" I read about int8 such as having
problems been recognized by the optimizer when doing searches.
The example on the docs is that something like:
select * from table where <int8> = ###
would not use the index. One would have to do:
select * from table where <int8> = '###'
Which is a pain.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-09 15:59:54 | Re: RULE with conditional behaviour? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-09 15:37:58 | Re: Fsync on/off For Various Filesystems/Platforms (Ending Note) |