Sounds great!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been amusing myself the last several evenings by working on a
> reimplementation of the NUMERIC datatype, along the lines of previous
> discussion (use base-10000 digits instead of base-10 so that the number
> of iterations of the inner loops decreases by a factor of about 4).
>
> It's not ready to commit yet, but I've got it passing the regression
> tests, and I find that it runs the 'numeric' test about a factor of five
> faster than CVS tip; so it seems worth doing. A couple questions for
> the group:
>
> 1. Has anyone got a problem with changing the on-disk representation of
> NUMERIC for 7.4? The only objection I can think of is that it'd prevent
> "pg_upgrade" from working ... but we don't have pg_upgrade capability
> right now anyway, and I've not heard that anyone is planning to make it
> happen for 7.4.
>
> 2. The numeric regression test probably isn't a good benchmark for this,
> since it spends most of its time pushing around numerics with hundreds of
> digits. I doubt that's representative of common usage. Can anyone
> offer a more real-world benchmark test?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
