Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AA52E3191 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:19:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95666-01 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:19:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43A92E010A for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:19:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0C0JA7B028652; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:19:10 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Stone cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Best way to index IP data? In-reply-to: <20080111212703.GU5294@mathom.us> 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> <20080111212703.GU5294@mathom.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Stone message dated "Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:27:05 -0500" Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:19:10 -0500 Message-ID: <28651.1200097150@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/89 X-Sequence-Number: 28328 Michael Stone writes: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:07:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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?) It was correct, but not as of 8.3. Considering you could save a whole one byte by not storing the netmask (well, maybe more depending on alignment considerations), the complaint level is unjustified. regards, tom lane