Paul Jungwirth wrote:
Or something like this in pseudocode:

numeric = int8_numeric(*(uint64 *)(&i->data[0])) *
int8_numeric(MAX_INT64) + int8_numeric(*(uint64 *)(&i->data[8]))

This is more like what I was hoping for, rather than converting to a
string and back. Would you mind confirming for me: int8_numeric turns an
int64 into an arbitrary-precision numeric Datum? So there is no overflow
risk here?
Sure, no risk. Numeric precision is limited 1000 digits with magnitude 1000

But it looks like int8_numeric takes a *signed* integer. Isn't that a
problem? I suppose I could get it working though by jumping through some
signed vs unsigned problem does not exist actually, because of precision of numeric is much better than we need and presence of numeric_abs.

Yes, but that seems like an unrealistic concern. Even "only" 2^64 is
18446744073709551616 records. Or another way of thinking about it, if 64
:) "only"

bits (or 32) is a good enough penalty input for all the other data
types, why not for UUIDs? Keep in mind type 3-5 UUIDs should be evenly
distributed. Perhaps we could use the bottom half (instead of the top)
to ensure even distribution for type 1 and 2 too.
it must be. But UUID could be taken for unknown source and we can't predict distribution. I believe pg generates them correctly, but other generators could be not so good.

It seems to me that using only the top half should be okay, but if you
believe it's not I'll go with the int8_numeric approach (in three chunks
instead of two to work around signed-vs-unsigned).
Yes, I believe. It is not good case when we can ruin index performance with special set of value.

Some difficulty which I see is how to transform numeric penalty to double as it requires by GiST. May be, penalty/(INT_MAX64*INT_MAX64 + INT_MAX64)? Keep in mind, that penalty is how range will be enlarged after range union, so minimal penalty is 0 and maximum is 0xffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Teodor Sigaev                      E-mail:

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to