From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Thomas Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "Michael Meskes" <meskes(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL Hacker" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] ERROR: Unable to identify an operator '=' for types 'numeric' and 'float8' |
Date: | 2000-02-17 02:37:23 |
Message-ID: | 000601bf78ef$ebc90580$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > One hesitation I have is the performance hit in mixing FLOAT and
> > NUMERIC; I (probably) don't want to make NUMERIC the "best" numeric
> > type, since it is potentially so slow.
>
> I concur --- I'd be inclined to leave FLOAT8 as the top of the
> hierarchy. But NUMERIC could be stuck in there between int and float,
> no? (int-vs-numeric ops certainly must be promoted to numeric...)
>
Is this topic related to the fact that 1.1 is an FLOAT8 constant in
PostgreSQL ?
I've not understood at all why it's OK.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-02-17 02:39:10 | psql problem |
Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-02-17 02:34:48 | Re: [HACKERS] FYI: BNF for SQL93 and SQL-3 |