Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 19:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Could someone please quantify how much bang we might get for what seems > > > > like quite a lot of bucks? > > > > I appreciate the need for speed, but the saving here strikes me as > > > > marginal at best, unless my instincts are all wrong (quite possible) > > > > > > Two bytes per numeric value is not a lot, agreed. > > > > I'm optimising for Data Warehousing. If you have a very large table with > > a higher proportion of numerics on it, then your saving can be >5% of > > tablesize which could be very useful. For the general user, it might > > produce less benefit, I accept. > > > > At the moment we've established we can do this fairly much for free. > > i.e. nobody cares about the drop in digits (to 255) and the other coding > > I don't believe the above is safe to say, yet. AFAICS, this has been > discussed only on hackers (and patches) in this discussion, whereas this > sort of change should probably be brought up on general as well to get a > greater understanding of whether there are people who care. I expect that > there won't be, but given that I'm still not sure what the plan to support > applications upward is for this change, I think it's probably a good idea > to query a larger segment of the population.
Agreed. With the proposal, we are saving perhaps 5% storage space for numeric fields, but are adding code complexity and reducing its possible precision. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
