Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of mié feb 01 19:12:58 -0300 2012: > On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > But if we want to put it on a diet, the first thing I'd probably be > > inclined to lose is the float4 specialization. Some members of the > > audience will recall that I take dim view of floating point arithmetic > > generally, but I'll concede that there are valid reasons for using > > float8. I have a harder time coming up with a good reason to use > > float4 - ever, for anything you care about. So I would be inclined to > > think that if we want to trim this back a bit, maybe that's the one to > > let go. If we want to be even more aggressive, the next thing I'd > > probably lose is the optimization of multiple sortkey cases, on the > > theory that single sort keys are probably by far the most common > > practical case. > > I do find float4 to be useful, though it's possible that my understanding is > flawed… > > We end up using float to represent ratios in our database; things that > really, honest to God do NOT need to be exact.
But then, do you sort using those ratios? -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
