Re: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr
От | Pomarede Nicolas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0701301149140.32052@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr (Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Pomarede Nicolas: > >> I could use PG internal inet/cidr type to store the ip addrs, which >> would take 12 bytes per IP, thus gaining a few bytes per row. > > I thought it's down to 8 bytes in PostgreSQL 8.2, but I could be > mistaken. > >> Apart from gaining some bytes, would the btree index scan be faster >> with this data type compared to plain varchar ? > > It will be faster because less I/O is involved. > > For purposes like yours, there is a special ip4 type in a contributed > package which brings down the byte count to 4. I'm not sure if it's > been ported to PostgreSQL 8.2 yet. Yes thanks for this reference, ip4r package seems to be a nice addition to postgres for what I'd like to do. Does someone here have some real life experience with it (regarding performance and stability) ? Also, is it possible that this package functionalities' might be merged into postgres one day, I think the benefit of using 4 bytes to store an ipv4 addr could be really interesting for some case ? thanks, ---------------- Nicolas Pomarede e-mail: npomarede@corp.free.fr "In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates ?"
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: