From: | Pomarede Nicolas <npomarede(at)corp(dot)free(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: int4 vs varchar to store ip addr |
Date: | 2007-01-30 10:54:05 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0701301149140.32052@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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
> mistaken.
>
>> 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.
Yes thanks for this reference, ip4r package seems to be a nice addition to
postgres for what I'd like to do. Does someone here have some real life
experience with it (regarding performance and stability) ?
Also, is it possible that this package functionalities' might be merged
into postgres one day, I think the benefit of using 4 bytes to store an
ipv4 addr could be really interesting for some case ?
thanks,
----------------
Nicolas Pomarede e-mail: npomarede(at)corp(dot)free(dot)fr
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates ?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | imad | 2007-01-30 11:39:20 | Re: Querying distinct values from a large table |
Previous Message | Rigmor Ukuhe | 2007-01-30 10:21:38 | Re: Partitioning |