Jim Crate [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on 7/15/03, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
to real IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
think I could save about 25% of my table size.
Why do you need
If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
to real IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
think I could save about 25% of my table size.
Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types? I don't think so.
If I succeed in implementing them, would
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types? I don't think so.
If I succeed in implementing them, would you accept a patch?
You can have unsigned integers using a domain with a check constraint.
They take twice as much storage as necessary.
