Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) writes:
>> We already have the portions of this behavior that seem to me to be
>> likely to be worthwhile (such as NULL elimination and compression of
>> large field values). Shaving a couple bytes from a bigint doesn't
>> strike me as interesting.
> I expect that there would be value in doing this with the inet type,
> to distinguish between the smaller IPv4 addresses and the larger IPv6
> ones. We use the inet type (surprise! ;-)) and would benefit from
> having it "usually smaller" (notably since IPv6 addresses are a
> relative rarity, at this point).
Uh ... inet already does that. Now it's true you could save a byte or
two more with a bespoke IPv4-only type, but the useful lifespan of such a
type probably isn't very long.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Kyle Cordes||Date: 2008-10-30 22:11:21|
|Subject: Re: Decreasing WAL size effects|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-10-30 22:01:10|
|Subject: Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql?|