Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I realize it is during parsing. I was just wondering if making
> constants coming in from the parser NUMERIC is a performance hit?
Offhand I don't see a reason to think that coercing to NUMERIC (and then
something else) is slower than coercing to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do we know that defaulting floating constants will not be a performance
> > hit?
>
> Uh ... what's your concern exactly? The datatype coercion (if any) will
> happen once at parse time, not at runtime.
Yes, I realize it is during p
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we know that defaulting floating constants will not be a performance
> hit?
Uh ... what's your concern exactly? The datatype coercion (if any) will
happen once at parse time, not at runtime.
regards, tom lane
--
Tom Lane wrote:
> Moving to the left requires an explicit cast (or at least an assignment
> to a column). I know this looks strange to someone who knows that our
> numeric type beats float4/float8 on both range and precision, but it's
> effectively mandated by the SQL spec. Any combination of "e
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, I missed much of the casting discussion -- but is there a
> reason why we can't cast from float8 -> numeric implicitely? IIRC the
> idea was to allow implicit casts from lower precision types to higher
> precision ones.
The implicit casting hierarc
