Re: int8 version of NUMERIC?

On 12/1/04 3:28 pm, "Bruno Wolff III" <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 21:53:09 +0700,
> David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> My concern is that, the PostgreSQL docs says NUMERIC & DECIMAL is very
>> slow compared to INT/BIGINT. Should I worry about that?
>
> Most likely disk IO not cpu will be your bottleneck and the extra overhead
> of numeric relative to int or float won't be a big deal.
>
> Numeric is stored usingh based 10000 (at least in 7.4.x) and hence isn't
> that horrible performance-wise (as compared to say storing it as an ascii
> string).

Out of interest, where does the performance of storing at as TEXT suffer
here... Reading or writing or both?

Thanks

Adam

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.