Re: New version of money type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Subject | Re: New version of money type |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20060928233211.GF34238@nasby.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: New version of money type ("D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>) |
Responses |
Re: New version of money type
(Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: New version of money type (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:19:47PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:53:34 +0200 > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote: > > Every new type needs to have a well-defined use-case before it can be > > considered for includion. > > Well, it is already included. The current proposal is simply to > improve the existing type. I guess you are arguing a different > proposal altogether - to remove the existing type. The existing type is depricated and has been since at least 8.1; so yes, it's slated for removal. > > Currently we have: > > - Is possibly faster than numeric > > I suppose I should quantify this but it's hard to get motivated after > the many man-hours (mine and my staff) I had to spend on code and > schema optimizations I needed to do just to get closer to the previous > speed our aps had before we converted from money to numeric. I will > try to find time to put together a test that appoximates that real > world example. > > > - Takes less space than numeric > > Never really considered this a major improvement over numeric given the > cost of disk these days. I suppose it could be contributing to the > speed increase. Less space == more speed > > - Customisable output (only one currency at a time though) > > - Fixed number of decimal places > > The original code actually handled number of decimal places. It tended > to cause problems though. These are areas that the existing type, as > well as the proposed change, could be worked on. I would hesitate to > work on both together though and going to 64bit will probably add more > value right now than those things, certainly for existing users of the > type. > > By the way, the current proposal actually removes the currency symbol > but I have received complaints about that. It should probably go back > just because it is outside of the scope of the primary change. That > can be dealt with later. Perhaps a good compromise would be to call your type 'USD' or something similar. I can see where there's use for it, but it seems too limited to consider it a generic money type. What would be ideal is a money type that stored what currency was used and let you change precision (within reason). -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
pgsql-hackers by date: