* 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
> 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.
Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Cosimo Streppone||Date: 2007-01-29 16:44:13|
|Subject: Re: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr|
|Previous:||From: Pomarede Nicolas||Date: 2007-01-29 16:22:22|
|Subject: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr|