Re: Hardware upgrade for a high-traffic database

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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