Re: [GENERAL] IPv4 addresses, unsigned integers, space
Jim Crate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > on 7/15/03, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET >>to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I >>think I could save about 25% of my table size. > > Why do you need unsigned ints to hold IP addresses? This is a misunderstanding. I could use both space-conservative IP addresses and unsigned integers. > What difference does it make if IP addresses with a class A higher > than 127 appear as negative numbers? The mapping does not preserve ordering if not done carefully. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] IPv4 addresses, unsigned integers, space
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types? I don't think so. >> If I succeed in implementing them, would you accept a patch? > > You can have unsigned integers using a domain with a check constraint. They take twice as much storage as necessary. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] IPv4 addresses, unsigned integers, space
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:59:34 +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET > to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I > think I could save about 25% of my table size. > > Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types? I don't think so. > If I succeed in implementing them, would you accept a patch? You can have unsigned integers using a domain with a check constraint. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
