| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: numeric/decimal docs bug? |
| Date: | 2002-04-12 14:32:35 |
| Message-ID: | 27340.1018621955@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I've been wanting to ask: we have in a few cases moved aggregate
> calculations from small, fast data types to using numeric as the
> accumulator.
Which ones are you concerned about? As of 7.2, the only ones that use
numeric accumulators for non-numeric input types are
aggname | basetype | aggtransfn | transtype
----------+-------------+---------------------+-------------
avg | int8 | int8_accum | _numeric
sum | int8 | int8_sum | numeric
stddev | int2 | int2_accum | _numeric
stddev | int4 | int4_accum | _numeric
stddev | int8 | int8_accum | _numeric
variance | int2 | int2_accum | _numeric
variance | int4 | int4_accum | _numeric
variance | int8 | int8_accum | _numeric
All of these seem to have good precision/range arguments for using
numeric accumulators, or to be enough off the beaten track that it's
not worth much angst to optimize them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-12 14:51:05 | Re: numeric/decimal docs bug? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-12 14:14:26 | Re: 7.3 schedule |