Tom Lane wrote: > "John D. Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hm ... between that, the possible crypto connection, and John's > >> personal testimony > > > Just to be clear, this John has yet to use NUMERIC for any > > calculations, let alone in that range. > > My mistake, got confused as to who had said what. > > The point remains though: in discussing this proposed patch, we were > assuming that 10^508 would still be far beyond what people actually > needed. Even one or two reports from the list membership of actual > use of larger values casts a pretty big shadow on that assumption.
Agreed. I would like to see us hit the big savings first, like merging cmin/cmax (4 bytes per row) and reducing the varlena header size (2-3 bytes for short values), before we start going after disk savings that actually limit our capabilites. -- 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 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
