From: | "John D(dot) Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits |
Date: | 2005-12-05 13:24:16 |
Message-ID: | bf1b9247b4f289f3a56fe9b9fa4dd80a@mitre.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>> There are practical applications, eg, 1024-bit keys are fairly common
>> objects in cryptography these days, and that equates to about 10^308.
>> I don't really foresee anyone trying to run crypto algorithms with SQL
>> NUMERIC arithmetic, though ...
>
> 2046 bit keys are becoming more common. However, math using these keys
> is
> usually done modulo a product of two primes and there are ways of
> doing the
> calculations that are going to be much faster than doing them the way
> Postgres does. So it is unlikely that anyone would be using Postgres'
> numeric
> type to do this in any case.
Nonetheless, the fact that people can think of practical applications
for numbers whose length is easily within a factor of two of the
proposed limitation makes me squeamish about it being shrunk. Also, I
would say the same arguments about doing math with NUMERICs suggest
that saving a few byes in representation is not a big deal. On the few
occasions where I have used NUMERICs, I didn't care about stuff like
that.
For what it's worth.
- John D. Burger
MITRE
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pandurangan R S | 2005-12-05 13:59:07 | Re: ODBC Layer and the now() function |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-12-05 12:08:16 | Re: fts, compond words? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mark | 2005-12-05 13:38:17 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
Previous Message | Hans-Juergen Schoenig | 2005-12-05 09:36:09 | Re: generalizing the planner knobs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-12-05 14:19:31 | Re: [PATCHES] snprintf() argument reordering not working |
Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2005-12-05 12:27:46 | Trivial doc-patch for constraint description |