Re: Table partitioning for maximum speed?

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The data format change suggested by someone else may be worth trying
> as well. In addition to their suggestions, you might experiment with
> keeping the hash in either 4 ints or 2 bigints. If you use bigints,
> you could probably just use an index on one of the bigints and have
> only a small chance of finding more than one row that matches.
> 

This is an interesting idea. Alternatively just use bytea and store the 
16 bytes directly (i.e. no hex or base64 encoding). There is b-tree 
index support for bytea.

Joe