Re: Using , instead of . for thousands..

    1,000 is one thousand, right?

    1.000 is one, right?

    Since the decimal isn't just an arbitrary separator when we're speaking
of decimal numbers (1.00 is certainly a lot different than 1000.00) I guess
I don't follow what the problem is.. How can you have one thousand
represented as 1.000, unless you're storing it as a string for some reason
(say, in a varchar field instead of a float or something)?

    Of course the question might be flying right over my head, sorry if
that's the case :-)

-Mitch

----- Original Message -----
From: "mazzo" <jambo@aruba.it>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 4:02 PM
Subject: Using , instead of . for thousands..


> Hi all...i'm converting an access 97 database to pg and i have a little
> problem...since i'ìm in italy....thousand use commas as a separator and
not
> dots (eg 1,000 not 1.000)... is there a function to instruct postgresql to
> use the comma instead of the dot?? I would be very usefull because it
would
> avoid me to open the files i dump with access and find/replace all the
> commas with dots...
> Btw ... i'm on some testing and this is my situation:
> I have a db that has about 10 tables of which 1 has 200000+ records and
> others have about 30000....now this db is in access 97 on a dual pII 600
> scsi hd 512 mb RAM ecc ecc (a good machine....) now...for testing i'm
using
> a celeron 500 with 128 mb ram and udma 66 hd and after having exported the
> accessdb into postgres i can see that to open a table with the access
> 97/dual pIII machine takes me about 10 secs...the same table opened on the
> cel with postgres takes about 5 secs...am i crazy or can i really gain so
> much speed on pg..??!!??
> Thanks for your answers and sorry if my english is not really good..
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
>