Thanks for answer, but in documentation I found that Numeric can be without
scale and precision defined:
"Specifying
NUMERICwithout any precision or scale creates a column in which numeric
values of any precision and scale can be stored, up to the implementation
limit on precision. A column of this kind will not coerce input values to
any particular scale, whereas numeric columns with a declared scale will
coerce input values to that scale. (The SQL standard requires a default
scale of 0, i.e., coercion to integer precision. We find this a bit useless.
If you're concerned about portability, always specify the precision and
scale explicitly.) "
Talking about float: "If you require exact storage and calculations (such as
for monetary amounts), use the numeric type instead. "
So, it seems that numeric without parameters (precision, scale) behave
similar to float, but is much exact. Am I right or I missunderstood?
Thanks,
Zlatko
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Caduto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Zlatko Matić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] numeric data type?
Zlatko Matić wrote:
Is "numeric" data type good choice for a field that would store integer
values in most cases, but sometimes decimal values as well?
Thanks,
Zlatko
I think you would be better off with a float.
numeric has to have a scale set to it, while float4 or float8 does not.
--
Tony Caduto
AM Software Design
Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
