On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Brian Dunavant <br...@omniti.com> wrote:
> You should consider a BitString. > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/datatype-bit.html > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, brian <br...@meadows.pair.com> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I have a single-user application which is growing beyond the > > fixed-format data files in which it currently holds its data, I need a > > proper database as the backend. The front end is written using Lazarus > > and FreePascal under Linux, should anyone feel that makes a > > difference. The database will need to grow to around 250,000 records. > > > > My problem is with the data field which is the (unique) key. It's > > really a single 192-bit integer (it holds various bits of bitmapped > > data) which I currently hold as six 32-bit integers, but can convert > > if needed when transferring the data. > > > > How would you advise that I hold this field in a Postgres database, > > given the requirement for the whole thing to be a unique key? The > > first 64 bits change relatively infrequently, the last 128 bits will > > change with virtually every record. The last 128 bits will ALMOST be > > unique in themselves, but not quite. :( > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian. > > > > > > -- > > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > I suggest the bytea type.
