Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > I am confused by your use of the term "dynamic" range. From what you > > say above that we are just moving from 1000 to 508 for storage, and that > > computational range would still be 4096? > > No, computational range would still be on the order of 10^16G ... in the > computational format, the weight is an int. The restriction to 1000 > digits was never anything but an artificial limit. (Of course, you > might not have the patience to actually do any arithmetic with that many > digits, but the point is there was a whole lot of headroom before, and > now there won't be.)
Sorry, I am confused. If our computational range is that high, why does SELECT factorial(4000) and SELECT factorial(6000) produce the same number of digits on my screen. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
