Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD88A2E3B78 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:27:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95973-07 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:27:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F251A2E3AB3 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:27:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([71.178.47.70]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JUI00FR70UFCOK0@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:25:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08A91F81D; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4yDr9MYYZ7o8; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4AE571F812; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:27:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:27:05 -0500 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Best way to index IP data? In-reply-to: <24044.1200082058@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20080111212703.GU5294@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 References: <200801101614.54729.kevin@kevinkempterllc.com> <36e682920801101541o7626bbddj428617144240c554@mail.gmail.com> <13179.1200064791@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080111162747.GT5294@mathom.us> <24044.1200082058@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/76 X-Sequence-Number: 28315 On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:07:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >Michael Stone writes: >> Well, a native IPv6 type would also be nice; inet is ridiculously >> bloated for both IPv4 *and* IPv6. > >Nonsense. 3 bytes overhead on a 16-byte address is not "ridiculously >bloated", especially if you want a netmask with it. Big if, no? There's a very large set of users that *don't* want/need a netmask, which is why the topic keeps coming back. (Also, according to the docs, inet requires 24 bytes, which is 50% more than needed; is that not correct?) Mike Stone