Heh, you know, this all started sounding really familiar.
Your post about this in 2008 Tim:
https://lists.launchpad.net/drizzle-discuss/msg02584.html
And my reply about the not so wasted storage by InnoDB with BIGINT vs. INT.
https://lists.launchpad.net/drizzle-discuss/msg02584.html
Brian.
--------
http://brian.moonspot.net/
On 3/25/10 4:03 PM, Tim Soderstrom wrote:
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
