| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird type selection choice |
| Date: | 2007-11-06 20:51:59 |
| Message-ID: | 87ir4f14i8.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The clarity stems from the fact that this is the variant that doesn't
> lose data whereas the other one does.
I think double has a wider range. So you get a choice between losing precision
or not being able to store all values.
> The expression I originally posted works on Oracle. I wonder how they
> do it.
I think they only have one type which uses different storage formats depending
on the data.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-11-06 22:13:13 | fulltext parser strange behave |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-11-06 20:13:19 | Re: Visibility map thoughts |