Many thanks for the help!
numeric is my choice :)
01.06.10, 19:19, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:24 AM, viras wrote:
>
> >> What type of the data is better for using? Numbers up to 100000
> >> and accuracy of 2 fractional signs.
> >
> > numeric is a good choice to avoid loss of precision, but can be a
> > bit slower.
> >
> > You could also try float8.
>
> Yeah, as long as you remember that this is an *approximate* data
> type. If you really mean that you're satisfied with an *accuracy*
> of two fractional digits for a number up to 100000, you are OK. But
> realize that means that 1.01 would actually be
> 1.0100000000000000088817841970012523233890533447265625 and that
> 100000.01 would actually be
> 100000.009999999994761310517787933349609375 -- accurate to far more
> than two decimal digits, but not *exact*.
>
> If you want exact values based on decimal fractions, you should use
> numeric.
>
> -Kevin
>
>
