On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:22:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Viscuso <michael.visc...@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 >
Hi Michael, If you have access to the application, you can map the unsigned 64-bits to the PostgreSQL signed 64-bit type with a simple subtraction. That will allow you to drop all the numeric use. Also if the guid is a 64-bit values stuffed into a numeric(20), you can do it there as well. I achieved a hefty performance boost by making those application level changes in a similar situation. Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
