Re: Best way to index IP data?

Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:07:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Nonsense.  3 bytes overhead on a 16-byte address is not "ridiculously
>> bloated", especially if you want a netmask with it.

> Big if, no? There's a very large set of users that *don't* want/need a
> netmask, which is why the topic keeps coming back. (Also, according to
> the docs, inet requires 24 bytes, which is 50% more than needed; is that
> not correct?)

It was correct, but not as of 8.3.  Considering you could save a whole
one byte by not storing the netmask (well, maybe more depending on
alignment considerations), the complaint level is unjustified.

            regards, tom lane