| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Date: | 2005-11-01 22:38:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20051101223808.GP20349@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:54:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be reasonable to restrict the range of NUMERIC to the point
> that we could fit the weight/sign/dscale into 2 bytes instead of 4,
> thereby saving 2 bytes per NUMERIC. I'm not excited about the other
> aspects of this, though.
FWIW, most databases I've used limit NUMERIC to 38 digits, presumably to
fit length info into 1 or 2 bytes. So there's something to be said for a
small numeric type that has less overhead and a large numeric (what we
have today).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-01 22:39:31 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-01 22:16:58 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-01 22:39:31 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-01 22:16:58 | Re: Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |