Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits

From: "John D(dot) Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org>
To: PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits
Date: 2005-12-05 13:24:16
Message-ID: bf1b9247b4f289f3a56fe9b9fa4dd80a@mitre.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

>> There are practical applications, eg, 1024-bit keys are fairly common
>> objects in cryptography these days, and that equates to about 10^308.
>> I don't really foresee anyone trying to run crypto algorithms with SQL
>> NUMERIC arithmetic, though ...
>
> 2046 bit keys are becoming more common. However, math using these keys
> is
> usually done modulo a product of two primes and there are ways of
> doing the
> calculations that are going to be much faster than doing them the way
> Postgres does. So it is unlikely that anyone would be using Postgres'
> numeric
> type to do this in any case.

Nonetheless, the fact that people can think of practical applications
for numbers whose length is easily within a factor of two of the
proposed limitation makes me squeamish about it being shrunk. Also, I
would say the same arguments about doing math with NUMERICs suggest
that saving a few byes in representation is not a big deal. On the few
occasions where I have used NUMERICs, I didn't care about stuff like
that.

For what it's worth.

- John D. Burger
MITRE

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pandurangan R S 2005-12-05 13:59:07 Re: ODBC Layer and the now() function
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2005-12-05 12:08:16 Re: fts, compond words?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mark 2005-12-05 13:38:17 Re: Reducing relation locking overhead
Previous Message Hans-Juergen Schoenig 2005-12-05 09:36:09 Re: generalizing the planner knobs

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-12-05 14:19:31 Re: [PATCHES] snprintf() argument reordering not working
Previous Message Joachim Wieland 2005-12-05 12:27:46 Trivial doc-patch for constraint description