X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB09DD975A for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:04:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09922-09 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:04:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983B6D96CC for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:04:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id B7AE431F52; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:04:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: Chris Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: int2 vs int4 in Postgres Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:47:19 -0400 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 14 Message-ID: <607jd3lcwo.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.17 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:M5rnQ4Tr4guQbaG0kHtHsscQ2aY= To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.094 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/360 X-Sequence-Number: 14668 truthhurts@insightbb.com ("Announce") writes: > I KNOW that I am not going to have anywhere near 32,000+ different > genres in my genre table so why use int4? Would that squeeze a few > more milliseconds of performance out of a LARGE song table query > with a genre lookup? By the way, I see a lot of queries on tables NOT optimized in this fashion that run in less than a millisecond, so it would seem remarkable to me if there were milliseconds to be squeezed out in the first place... -- output = reverse("moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?