rahul143 wrote:
> We are currently using a 32byte varchar for our primary keys. We tried to
> reduce this down to 16 bytes but varchar didn’t seem to store this
> correctly. I’d like to use bytea instead so we could use 16bytes, but are
> indexes used properly ? Does anyone have any other suggestio
guids ? We don’t have any experience in recompiling the postgres
source code etc.
-
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/GENERAL-guids-bytea-and-index-use-tp5734650.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent
Paul Newman wrote:
We are currently using a 32byte varchar for our primary keys. We tried
to reduce this down to 16 bytes but varchar didn't seem to store this
correctly.
In what way was it not stored "correctly"? The size limit should not
significantly affect varchar behavior, other than bounding
Hi,
We are currently using a 32byte varchar for our
primary keys. We tried to reduce this down to 16 bytes but varchar didn’t
seem to store this correctly. I’d like to use bytea instead so we could
use 16bytes, but are indexes used properly ? Does anyone have any other
suggestions on how t
On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Use bytea. It stores bytes and allows the conversion into several
output
formats.
bytea with the binary or the hex? And isn't it a bit of a waste to add
the extra 4 bytes when I'll only ever need 16?
Thanks,
David
--
David
David Wheeler writes:
> It looks like the hex option would be the best option, but there's no
> native hex format in PostgreSQL. Anyone have suggestions on what the
> best approach might be? I can't convert it to a number, really, because
> 128 bit numbers aren't too portable).
Use bytea. It sto
