Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: denis@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an
From: Douglas McNaught <doug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:28:12 -0500
Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <44042B7C.9090403@xxxxxxxxxxx> (denis@xxxxxxxxxxx's message of "Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:52:44 +0100")
References: <44042B7C.9090403@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

denis@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> I need to store very large integers (more of 30 digits).

Er,

What's wrong with the NUMERIC type?  That can go up to hundreds of
digits.

-Doug

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an
  - From: Denis Gasparin

References:
- Size comparison between a Composite type and an equivalent Text field
  - From: denis

Prev by Date: Re: majordomo unmaintained, postmaster emails ignored?
Next by Date: Re: Sequences/defaults and pg_dump
Previous by thread: Size comparison between a Composite type and an equivalent Text field
Next by thread: Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Postgresql Jobs] [Postgresql Admin] [Postgresql Performance] [Linux Clusters] [PHP Home] [PHP on Windows] [Kernel Newbies] [PHP Classes] [PHP Books] [PHP Databases] [Postgresql & PHP] [Yosemite]

Powered by Linux