Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C941337B4A for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:46:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70436-09 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:46:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571B41337B49 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:46:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id oBTHk36K025262; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:46:03 -0500 (EST) To: Leslie S Satenstein cc: Robert Haas , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Words missing in the following txt In-reply-to: <15263.96309.qm@web110704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <15263.96309.qm@web110704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Comments: In-reply-to Leslie S Satenstein message dated "Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:25:32 -0800" Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:46:02 -0500 Message-ID: <25261.1293644762@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/51 X-Sequence-Number: 6287 Leslie S Satenstein writes: > A good compromise is to perhaps consider the following. > The bigint type should only be used if the integer range is insufficient, because calculation with the latter is definitely faster. This doesn't seem to me to fix the basic problem, which is that "the latter" appears to refer to "integer range". You don't calculate with ranges, but with types. Maybe it should be The bigint type should only be used if the range of the integer type is insufficient, because the latter is definitely faster. I'm not that excited about making the text specify that calculations are faster, because on most modern machines the actual calculation speed difference is pretty minuscule. What's expensive about bigint is pushing around twice as much data and/or having to do palloc's. regards, tom lane