The problem is that IPv4 is only 32-bits and will always only ever be 32-bits. So storing something that will only ever be 32-bis into 64-bit space seems a bit silly. Perhaps I'm over-optimizing or jumping the gun (say before someone somewhere opts to make an IP type :) but seems somewhat severe. I was thinking about how to get around it by using a binary column or something like that but haven't quite figured that one out yet.
On Mar 25, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Brian Moon wrote: > What is wrong with BIGINT? Are you looking to have your database do > constraint checking on your data? > > Brian. > -------- > http://brian.moonspot.net/ > > On 3/25/10 3:19 PM, Tim Soderstrom wrote: >> I think this came up a while ago, but the lack of unsigned integers >> has been bugging me. I know there is or will be a way to do pluggable >> types in Drizzle but until then, for applications that rely on using >> unsigned INT for IPs, the only work-around I can think of is to use a >> BIGINT. Which is too big for an IPv4 but not big enough for IPv6. >> AAAH! :) >> >> Thoughts on some ways around that? I fear people will do the naughty >> and start storing IPs as varchars which is quite slow by comparison. >> >> Tim S. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : >> [email protected] Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
