by the way, this reminds me: I just ran a performance study at a company doing
an oracle-to-postgres conversion, and FYI converting from numeric and decimal
to integer/bigint/real saved roughly 3x on space and 2x on performance.
Obviously, YMMV.
adam
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc Cousin <[EMAIL PRO
On Wednesday 08 September 2004 16:56, you wrote:
> Marc Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The query has been generated by business objects ... i'ill try to suggest to the
> > developpers to remove this constant (if they can)...
> > The fields used by the sort are of type numeric(6,0) or (10,0
Marc Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The query has been generated by business objects ... i'ill try to suggest to the
> developpers to remove this constant (if they can)...
> The fields used by the sort are of type numeric(6,0) or (10,0) ...
> Could it be better if the fields were integer or
The query has been generated by business objects ... i'ill try to suggest to the
developpers to remove this constant (if they can)...
The fields used by the sort are of type numeric(6,0) or (10,0) ...
Could it be better if the fields were integer or anything else ?
On Wednesday 08 September 2004
Marc Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm having trouble with a (quite big) query, and can't find a way to make it
> faster.
Seems like it might help if the thing could use a HashAggregate instead
of sort/group. Numeric is not hashable, so having those TO_NUMBER
constants in GROUP BY destroy
