On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:57:41PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 5/28/13 4:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:17:42AM +0200, Maciej Gajewski wrote: > >>2. INTEGER > >> > >>I had to store a record with several uint32. I had to store an awful > >>lot of them; hundreds GB of data per day. Roughly half of the record > >>consists of uint32 fields. > >>Increasing the data type to bigint would mean that I could store 3 > >>instead of 4 days worth of data on available storage. > >>Continuing with int4 meant that I would have to deal with the data in > >>special way when in enters and leaves the DB. It's easy in C: just > >>cast uint32_t to int32_t. But python code requires more complex > >>changes. And the web backend too... > >> > >>It's suffering either way! > >> > >>Just imagine the conversation I had to have with my boss: "Either > >>we'll increase budged for storage, or we need to touch every bit of > >>the system". > > > >Did you try 'oid' as an unsigned int4? > > Using an internal catalog type for user data seems like a horrible idea to > me...
Uh, not sure if we can say oid is only an internal catalog type. It is certainly used for storing large object references. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
