Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an

From: Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To: Denis Gasparin <denis(at)edistar(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an
Date: 2006-02-28 21:22:29
Message-ID: 877j7fnppm.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Denis Gasparin <denis(at)edistar(dot)com> writes:

> If the composite data type has 4 bytes overhead, I save 4 bytes for
> each number... that is important because I must store many many
> numbers.

Yes, if size is a big issue you might be better off with a specialized
type.

-Doug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-02-28 21:23:54 Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an
Previous Message Denis Gasparin 2006-02-28 20:51:54 Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an