From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
Cc: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New version of money type |
Date: | 2006-09-28 16:44:24 |
Message-ID: | 20060928164424.GX24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Luke Lonergan (LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com) wrote:
> Though this may be the kiss of death, I favor a 64 bit float version of money. It's more terse than numeric and a *lot* faster when performing numeric operations because it would use a cpu intrinsic operand.
What about just having a numeric64, or changing numeric to support
moving to 64bit sizes when necessary and supported by the platform?
Exactly how much faster would it *really* be? Have you tested it? At
what point does it become a 'winning' change?
I'm not sure about 'money' in general but these claims of great
performance improvments over numeric just don't fly so easily with me.
numeric isn't all *that* much slower than regular old integer in the
tests that I've done.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Wong | 2006-09-28 16:50:14 | Re: Bitmap index status |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-09-28 16:40:04 | Re: New version of money type |