From: | "Mitch Vincent" <mvincent(at)cablespeed(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How Postgresql Compares For Query And Load Operations |
Date: | 2001-07-21 20:38:10 |
Message-ID: | 001a01c11225$0e4cd210$0200000a@Mitch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> count() is just a plain int4 counter. Obviously it could overflow with
> more than 2^31 rows, but we haven't yet had many (any?) complaints about
> that, so I'm not in a big hurry to change it.
I haven't run into it and haven't heard anything from anyone that has but
was curious just the same... I figured that count() was using an integer but
I suppose if someone had the number of rows required to overflow it they'd
be in the overflowing OID situation too and a dysfunctional count() would
probably be the least of their worries...
> OTOH, if we decide it's OK for sum(int4) to work better on machines with
> int8 support than on those without, maybe it'd make sense to change
> count() to use int8 too.
Sure..
> > I wonder how many PG users this would affect..... Any idea?
>
> A fairly small minority, I'm sure; but as usual, there's no way to know
> just how many...
I figured that it would be a tiny number of people.. IMHO we should do it
because as the great Spock once said "The needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few.."
Thanks!
-Mitch
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-07-21 21:46:45 | Re: foreign keys? |
Previous Message | Chris Mulcahy | 2001-07-21 20:28:14 | create function .... return record |