Many thanks for the help! numeric is my choice :) 01.06.10, 19:19, "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov>:
> Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:24 AM, viras wrote: > > >> What type of the data is better for using? Numbers up to 100000 > >> and accuracy of 2 fractional signs. > > > > numeric is a good choice to avoid loss of precision, but can be a > > bit slower. > > > > You could also try float8. > > Yeah, as long as you remember that this is an *approximate* data > type. If you really mean that you're satisfied with an *accuracy* > of two fractional digits for a number up to 100000, you are OK. But > realize that means that 1.01 would actually be > 1.0100000000000000088817841970012523233890533447265625 and that > 100000.01 would actually be > 100000.009999999994761310517787933349609375 -- accurate to far more > than two decimal digits, but not *exact*. > > If you want exact values based on decimal fractions, you should use > numeric. > > -Kevin > > -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
