Re: pg_class -> reltuples?
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_class -> reltuples? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1015548295.19014.31.camel@jiro обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_class -> reltuples? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_class -> reltuples?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 17:51, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Neil Conway wrote: > >> Is there a reason why the reltuples column of pg_class is stored as a > >> "real", rather than one of the integer data types? > > > That is an excellent question. I assume it is related to having > 4 > > billion rows, but we have int8 for that. > > 1. We support tables > 4G rows. I agree we should try to support very large tables -- so why waste space on storing floating point? And am I missing something, or is a "real" only 4 bytes? > 2. int8 is not available on all platforms. I have no problem making restrictions on data types for portability, but at least we should be consistent: % grep -rI 'long long' * | wc -l 37 % grep -rI 'int64' * | wc -l 191 On all the platforms I tested (x86, SPARC, PPC, PA-RISC, Alpha), a 'long long' is supported, and is 8 bytes. Which platforms don't have this, and are we actively supporting them? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: