From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Leslie S Satenstein <lsatenstein(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Words missing in the following txt |
Date: | 2010-12-30 04:18:23 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim=HqZ328kqDAOFJRzqpT+gg04wbyeGrmEgnAov@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Leslie S Satenstein <lsatenstein(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> A good compromise is to perhaps consider the following.
>
>> The bigint type should only be used if the integer range is insufficient, because calculation with the latter is definitely faster.
>
> This doesn't seem to me to fix the basic problem, which is that "the
> latter" appears to refer to "integer range". You don't calculate with
> ranges, but with types. Maybe it should be
>
> The bigint type should only be used if the range of the integer
> type is insufficient, because the latter is definitely faster.
>
> I'm not that excited about making the text specify that calculations are
> faster, because on most modern machines the actual calculation speed
> difference is pretty minuscule. What's expensive about bigint is
> pushing around twice as much data and/or having to do palloc's.
Yeah, I was actually wondering whether the first step here might be to
benchmark this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Leslie S Satenstein | 2010-12-30 11:11:18 | bigint and int |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-29 17:56:12 | Re: Some comments about Julian Dates and possible bug. Please provide feedback. |