| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jason Coene" <jcoene(at)gotfrag(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware upgrade for a high-traffic database |
| Date: | 2004-08-12 17:09:02 |
| Message-ID: | 119.1092330542@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
> The following suggestion works in two principles: one is that instead of
> using timestamps for ordering, integers are quicker,
The difference would be pretty marginal --- especially if you choose to
use bigints instead of ints. (A timestamp is just a float8 or bigint
under the hood, and is no more expensive to compare than those datatypes.
Timestamps *are* expensive to convert for I/O, but comparison does not
have to do that.) I wouldn't recommend kluging up your data schema just
for that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-08-12 17:48:38 | Re: Hardware upgrade for a high-traffic database |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-08-12 16:58:10 | Re: Hardware upgrade for a high-traffic database |