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

Re: New version of money type

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: New version of money type
Date: 2006-09-28 16:44:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Luke Lonergan (LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com) wrote:
> Though this may be the kiss of death, I favor a 64 bit float version of money.  It's more terse than numeric and a *lot* faster when performing numeric operations because it would use a cpu intrinsic operand.

What about just having a numeric64, or changing numeric to support
moving to 64bit sizes when necessary and supported by the platform?
Exactly how much faster would it *really* be?  Have you tested it?  At
what point does it become a 'winning' change?

I'm not sure about 'money' in general but these claims of great
performance improvments over numeric just don't fly so easily with me.
numeric isn't all *that* much slower than regular old integer in the
tests that I've done.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark WongDate: 2006-09-28 16:50:14
Subject: Re: Bitmap index status
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-09-28 16:40:04
Subject: Re: New version of money type

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