Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
> Matthieu Imbert wrote:
>
>> scenario 1 - parse the textual representation of all results of
>> requests to the database and convert textual timestamps to 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 your mail
>> 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
>
You mean that when results are asked in textual representation (the default), data is sent on network directly as
text?
--
Matthieu