| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Numeric performances |
| Date: | 2007-06-04 09:41:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200706040944.l549ig3r069459@smtp1.jaring.my |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 01:42 AM 6/1/2007, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>Vincenzo Romano escribió:
> > Hi all.
> > I'd like to know whether there is any "real world" evaluation (aka test) on
> > performances of the NUMERIC data type when compared to FLOAT8 and FLOAT4.
> > The documentation simply says that the former
> is "much slower" than the latter
> > ones.
>
>It is. But why do you care? You either have the correctness that
>NUMERIC gives, or you don't.
I suspect it's still useful to know what order of
magnitude slower it is. After all if it is 1000x
slower (not saying it is), some people may decide
it's not worth it or roll their own.
Any hints/gotchas for/when doing such performance tests?
Regards,
Link.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-06-04 09:43:08 | Re: changing 'mons' in interval? |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2007-06-04 09:32:18 | Re: simple select question |