From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Range types |
Date: | 2009-12-15 14:10:06 |
Message-ID: | 20091215141006.GB4544@tomas |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 01:09:02PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
[...]
> In fact, as I only recently found out, one of the design goals of IEEE
> floats was specifically that they sort lexicographically and use every
> bit pattern. So you can alwys get the "next" float by just
> incrementing your float as an 64-bit integer. Yes that raises your
> value by a different amount, and it's still useful.
Didn't know that -- thanks :-)
(and as Andrew Dunstan pointed out off-list: I was wrong with my bold
assertion that one can squeeze infinitely many (arbitrary length)
strings between two given. This is not always the case).
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLJ5i+Bcgs9XrR2kYRAqtUAJ0VHeUd7q/+Xr9H+Clbr2E0HVV3mgCdFXZM
/EPDk1B+M2uP6/Lqr50Rv4k=
=XICC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-15 14:52:40 | Re: Range types |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-15 13:50:13 | Re: New VACUUM FULL |