Re: Best way to index IP data?
От | Michael Stone |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Best way to index IP data? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080111214047.GW5294@mathom.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Best way to index IP data? (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:32:05PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: >On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:19:35PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: >>Besides, there are many cases where you want to track both ipv4 and >>ipv6 for the same purpose and requiring two different fields would be >>less than ideal. > >And, there are many cases where you don't. I've got two kinds of db's >that have IPs in them. In some, the IP is a small part of a table which >is focused on something else. For those I use inet, which provides a >nice bit of future-proofing. In other db's the IPs are the primary >focus. There are lots and lots of IPs, and the space used by IPs may be >the largest chunk of a particular table. For those tables, I don't use >inet because the overhead really is a significant fraction of the space. Oh, yeah, the latter type also has seperate IPv4 and IPv6 tables, because there's no point in bloating 99% of the data for the 1% that's IPv6. Is that a niche requirement? Maybe--but I think that storing netmasks is even *more* of a niche... I'm not arguing for the removal of inet, but I do think there's room for more than one type--and I certainly think its nuts to pretend that inet can meet every requirement well. Mike Stone
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: