From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pomarede Nicolas <npomarede(at)corp(dot)free(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Best way to index IP data? |
Date: | 2008-01-12 00:51:19 |
Message-ID: | 28998.1200099079@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Pomarede Nicolas <npomarede(at)corp(dot)free(dot)fr> writes:
> And it's true for IPv6 too, storing an IP that refer to an end point and
> not a subnet is requiring twice as much data as needed, because the
> netmask would always be ff:ff:ff:..:ff
> So, for people dealing with large database of IPs, it would be nice to be
> able to save 50% of the corresponding disk/cache/ram space for these IPs.
There seem to be a number of people in this thread laboring under the
illusion that we store a netmask as a mask. It's a bit count (think
/32 or /128) and occupies a whole one byte on disk. Killer overhead,
for sure.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-01-12 00:57:46 | Re: Best way to index IP data? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-01-12 00:43:18 | Re: Best way to index IP data? |