From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits |
Date: | 2005-12-03 00:37:49 |
Message-ID: | 10154.1133570269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
> The actual effective limit on NUMERIC is presently 10^128K, which is
> probably enough to count the femtoseconds remaining until the heat death
> of the universe, and then multiply that by the number of elementary
> particles therein ;-).
Should have done my research first. A little googling says that
* The total number of particles in the universe has been
variously estimated at numbers from 10^72 up to 10^87.
* The time to the heat death of the universe has been estimated at
10^200 years (and if there's one significant digit in that exponent
I'd be surprised...)
So the product I fancifully mentioned would weigh in somewhere around
10^300, and thus be *well* within the capability of even the proposed
restricted numeric format.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-03 02:22:57 | Re: 8.1, OID's and plpgsql |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 23:58:39 | Re: 8.1, OID's and plpgsql |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2005-12-03 00:40:47 | Re: strange behavior (corruption?) of large production |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2005-12-03 00:35:04 | Re: Optimizer oddness, possibly compounded in 8.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atsushi Ogawa | 2005-12-03 01:42:50 | Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 23:38:01 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |