Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEB72E00AE for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 20:42:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55928-03-4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 20:42:26 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5C62E00A2 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 20:41:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m4SNfkg4011407; Wed, 28 May 2008 19:41:46 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian cc: "Decibel!" , Alvaro Herrera , Jon Stewart , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Creating large database of MD5 hash values In-reply-to: <200805282337.m4SNba128261@momjian.us> References: <200805282337.m4SNba128261@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Wed, 28 May 2008 19:37:36 -0400" Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:41:46 -0400 Message-ID: <11406.1212018106@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200805/359 X-Sequence-Number: 30327 Bruce Momjian writes: > Decibel! wrote: >> If you do this *please* post it. I really think it would be worth >> while for us to have fixed-size data types for common forms of binary >> data; MD5, SHA1 and SHA256 come to mind. > Why do you think it would be worth while? Given that the overhead for short bytea values is now only one byte not four-plus-padding, the argument for such types is surely a lot weaker than it was before 8.3. regards, tom lane