From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
Date: | 2005-11-02 23:32:31 |
Message-ID: | 43694C8F.8040508@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
[patches removed]
Tom Lane wrote:
>Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>It seems straightforward enough to put in an additional test, similar to
>>the ones already there so that if its too big for a decimal we make it a
>>float straight away - only a float can be that big in that case. After
>>that I can't really see what the problem is?
>>
>>
>
>Wrong answer. You'll be introducing weird corner cases into the type
>resolution behavior.
>
>An approach that would actually have some credibility would be to not
>resolve constants to NUMERIC right away, but to invent an UNKNOWNNUMERIC
>pseudotype with coercion behavior comparable to the existing UNKNOWN
>type for string literals. This has been proposed before but hasn't
>really been needed so far. Of course, this converts the project from a
>minor localized hack on NUMERIC into a major piece of fiddling with the
>type resolution rules, with the potential for unforeseen side-effects on
>the behavior of other data types. It might be worth doing anyway --- I
>don't recall at the moment what problems UNKNOWNNUMERIC was intended to
>solve, but if they're still open issues then it's something we ought to
>get around to sometime.
>
>
>
>
Could someone please quantify how much bang we might get for what seems
like quite a lot of bucks?
I appreciate the need for speed, but the saving here strikes me as
marginal at best, unless my instincts are all wrong (quite possible)
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-11-02 23:34:28 | Re: 8.1RC1 fails to build on OS X (10.4) |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-02 23:28:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-11-02 23:57:39 | Re: [PATCHES] Partitioning docs |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-02 23:28:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |