Matthieu Imbert wrote:
> scenario 1 - parse the textual representation of all results of requests to the database and convert textual
timestampsto a binary
> format that i choose among those ones (number of microseconds since 2000-01-01, or a structure similar to pg_tm (but
with
> microsecond precision), or a time-format similar to one defined in rfc1305, or something else)
>
> or
>
> scenario 2 - directly use pgsql binary timestamp format. I think the latter is far more efficient. I'm new to
postgresql,but from
> what i understand, here are the conversions involved in both scenarios (hopping that my ascii art won't be garbled by
yourmail
> clients ;-) :
>
>
> scenario 1:
> .---------. .----------. .---------. .----------. .--------------. .----------. .---------.
> |timestamp| |pgsql | |timestamp| |pgsql | |timestamp | |my | |my |
> |storage |->|internal |->|storage |->|network |->|as |->|timestamp |->|timestamp|
> |in | |to | |in | |to | |textual | |conversion| |format |
> |database | |network | |network | |textual | |representation| |routines | | |
> |backend | |conversion| | | |conversion| | | | | | |
> | | |function | | | |function | | | | | | |
> '---------' '----------' '---------' '----------' '--------------' '----------' '---------'
I think this scenario has two boxes too many. Why would the backend
convert to network representation before converting to text?
Jeroen