Re: Real vs Int performance

From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Greco <David_Greco(at)harte-hanks(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Real vs Int performance
Date: 2011-01-27 14:30:15
Message-ID: 4D418177.1040401@peak6.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 01/27/2011 08:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Not if you can persuade the client-side code to output integers as
> integers. "numeric" type is orders of magnitude slower than integers.

I sadly have to vouch for this. My company converted an old Oracle app
and they changed all their primary keys (and foreign keys, and random
larger int fields) to NUMERIC(19)'s. I've convinced them all new stuff
should be BIGINT if they need that level of coverage, but the damage is
already done.

I'm not sure about orders of magnitude on the storage/index side, but my
tests gave us a 10% boost if just the keys are switched over to INT or
BIGINT.

--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer.php
for terms and conditions related to this email

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-27 14:51:08 Re: Why I lost the last pg_xlog file?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-27 14:18:11 Re: Real vs Int performance