| From: | "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using a Conversion Table |
| Date: | 2024-02-16 00:12:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20240216001216.kogrdgmpbklbyzyj@hjp.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2024-02-14 10:02:37 -0500, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> "Fiscal year" double precision,
>
> This column is an INTEGER in your other table, so your schema is not even
> internally consistent! Try to use TEXT, INT, DATE and TIMESTAMPTZ whenever
> possible,
While using double precision for fiscal year is rather grotesque
overkill (smallint would be sufficient) it isn't wrong: Any value you
could conceivably want to store for a fiscal year fits nicely (with lots
of room to spare) into a double precision.
I agree that consistency would be nice, though.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jay Stanley | 2024-02-16 00:25:10 | Re: PostgreSQL DB in prod, test, debug |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-02-15 23:51:56 | Re: How to do faster DML |