| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jdrake(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Any problem with the Long Integer type? |
| Date: | 2010-06-27 04:12:39 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimui7ZFxYIB5qdQ5PXQmDP85t0BQ8bGty1vZ4Uu@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2010/6/27 Joshua D. Drake <jdrake(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
> On 6/26/2010 1:25 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> 2010/6/26<wei725(at)lycos(dot)com>:
>>
>>>
>>> About four five years ago, I had received a few of emails about the data
>>> type problems on this mailing list. I believe that the problem was about a
>>> performance issue. Is any problem withe the Long Integer type in the late
>>> releases?
>>>
>>
>> There is no reason why Long can be slower. Maybe you are thinking
>> Numeric data type.
>>
>
> Actually as I understand it, if they are running 32bit it is theorectically
> slower.
aha - I undestand now. It could be - but from 8.3 the overhead is
relative small.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> JD
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | RP Khare | 2010-06-27 06:22:09 | Migrating from MySQL |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-06-26 23:08:18 | Re: Any problem with the Long Integer type? |