From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Viscuso <michael.viscuso@getcarbonblack.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query optimization using order by and limit
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:22:53 -0400
Message-ID: <7868.1316661773@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E7AA399.6000209@getcarbonblack.com>
References: <CA+Z27QQDRQ1h_tD1Tm_+T+-cBdt00hLWYRnvXygxLf_JWNTxZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4E7A93F9.1050301@2ndQuadrant.com>
<6768.1316657361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4E7AA399.6000209@getcarbonblack.com>
Michael Viscuso <michael.viscuso@getcarbonblack.com> writes:
> Greg/Tom, you are correct, these columns should be modified to whatever
> is easiest for Postgres to recognize 64-bit unsigned integers. Would
> you still recommend bigint for unsigned integers? I likely read the
> wrong documentation that suggested bigint for signed 64-bit integers and
> numeric(20) for unsigned 64-bit integers.
Unsigned? Oh, hm, that's a bit of a problem because we don't have any
unsigned types. If you really need to go to 2^64 and not 2^63 then
you're stuck with numeric ... but that last bit is costing ya a lot.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael.viscuso@getcarbonblack.com, greg@2ndQuadrant.com
Subject: Re: Query optimization using order by and limit
In-Reply-To: <7868.1316661773@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox