Re: bigint integers up to 19 digits.
| От | Tory M Blue |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: bigint integers up to 19 digits. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 8a547c841002041051i53d47fe4pf3a96e22bec85200@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: bigint integers up to 19 digits. (Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: bigint integers up to 19 digits.
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote: > Tory M Blue wrote: >> >> I have a column that is a bigint that needs to store integers up to 19 >> digits long. For the most part this works but we sometimes have >> numbers that are greater than 9223372036854775807. >> ... >> I was thinking of changing this to a real or double precision field, >> but read in the docs that the value stored is not always the value >> inserted... > > They're actually less precise than the same size of integer. Real/double > datatypes trade more range for less precision in the same number of bytes. > >> My number will always be 19 digits long and always an integer. >> I looked into the numeric data type, but the docs say that it can be slow. > > If it's *always* going to be 19 digits, couldn't you make it a text or char > field? You didn't say if this is really a number. Do you do arithmetic > with it? Sort it numerically? Or is it just a long identifier that happens > to only used digits? it is an identifier and is always a number and is used in grouping and querying. I thought I would lose performance if it is text vs an integer/double field. Tory
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: