Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-06 11:51:14
Message-ID: b42b73150905060451w1aa96b8dm7f53a30cce11bcc4@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm thinking plain old pairs-of-hex-digits might be the best
>>> tradeoff if conversion speed is the criterion.
>
>> That's a lot less space-efficient than base64, though.
>
> Well, base64 could give a 33% savings, but it's significantly harder
> to encode/decode.  Also, since it has a much larger set of valid
> data characters, it would be *much* more likely to allow old-style
> formatting to be mistaken for new-style.  Unless we can think of
> a more bulletproof format selection mechanism, that could be
> an overriding consideration.

another nit with base64 is that properly encoded data requires
newlines according to the standard.

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-05-06 12:02:13 Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-05-06 11:30:04 Re: bytea vs. pg_dump