Re: Best way to index IP data?

From: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Best way to index IP data?
Date: 2008-01-11 20:19:35
Message-ID: 20080111151935.40c8d2fd.darcy@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> writes:
> > Well, a native IPv6 type would also be nice; inet is ridiculously
> > bloated for both IPv4 *and* IPv6.
>
> Nonsense. 3 bytes overhead on a 16-byte address is not "ridiculously
> bloated", especially if you want a netmask with it.

Besides, there are many cases where you want to track both ipv4 and
ipv6 for the same purpose and requiring two different fields would be
less than ideal.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Stone 2008-01-11 21:27:05 Re: Best way to index IP data?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-11 20:07:38 Re: Best way to index IP data?