| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to do faster DML |
| Date: | 2024-02-15 20:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmmLnAc-MvZj_py537Ph0=p0VeTf9oe_mmGgYT7D8XoagBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I really worry you are overthinking this. The only real concern is going
from INT to BIGINT, jumping from 4 to 8 bytes or storage. That really
covers 99% of real world cases, and the canonical advice is to start with
BIGINT if you ever think your rows are going to be numbered in the
billions. Also, a NUMERIC can cause a table rewrite - try changing the
scale, not just the precision. And if your scale is 0, why are you using
numeric? :)
Cheers,
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2024-02-15 23:31:30 | Re: How to do faster DML |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-02-15 20:00:24 | Re: How to do faster DML |