From: | Ron Snyder <snyder(at)roguewave(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | putting binary data in a char field? |
Date: | 2004-06-17 20:04:22 |
Message-ID: | D486606E7AD20947BDB7E56862E04C39474F8C@cvo1.cvo.roguewave.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I'm attempting to use spamassassin 3.0 (beta) with an SQL backend, and have
identified one performance gain so far that makes PostgreSQL a good (IMO)
candidate for the backend. I need some advice though on another aspect--
instead of storing each token as text in the database, the token is being
sha1()'d and then possibly pack()'d.
That's all just background for my real question-- is there anything in the
standards (or elsewhere) that says you can't put binary(**) data into a char
field? When I changed the field to a bytea, processing time was
significantly reduced.
(**) Based on what very little I know of sha1 and of the tokens that have
been created by SA, it certainly looks like it's binary data that is being
inserted into the char field.
Thanks,
-ron
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2004-06-17 21:34:08 | pg_dump out of shared memory |
Previous Message | mike.griffin | 2004-06-17 19:40:25 | Re: 7.4 for Windows? |