| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: forcing returned values to be binary |
| Date: | 2005-11-16 20:23:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20051116202327.GA14480@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 13:01:20 -0500,
Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> I've talked to Ken Geis via email. He suggests that there is
> considerable overhead to be saved if we go to binary; especially in
> date, and timestamp fields
>
> One thing though if the date is 64 bit instead of float, what does
> the binary output look like? Are they different ?
Yes, the integer float representation is different than the floating point
representation.
>
> If so this would seem to complicate things quite a bit.
You probably also need to worry about the floating point representation on
the server being different from that on the client.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-16 20:32:59 | Re: Some array semantics issues |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-11-16 20:03:53 | Re: Some array semantics issues |