Re: storing binary data - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: storing binary data
Date
Msg-id 20001017081827.A3559@klamath.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: storing binary data  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 11:57:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> > It is, but (IMHO) it's a big waste of space. The actual MD5 digest is
> > 128 bits. If stored in binary form, it's 16 bytes. If stored in hex
> > form (as ASCII), it's 32 characters @ 1 byte per character =3D 32 bytes.
>
> You're worried about 16 bytes per pg_shadow entry?  Get real.  I'd
> have recommended bytea if the amount of storage involved were actually
> significant, but for this application readability seems more important.

To clarify, these are 'application users', not Postgres users. So
the info is stored in one of my own tables, not pg_shadow. Although
I agree, this isn't a big deal either way.

Alfred: thanks for the tip. Looks like base64 will solve my problems!

Thanks to everyone who responded,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilconway@home.com>
Get my GnuPG key from: http://klamath.dyndns.org/mykey.asc
Encrypted mail welcomed

Violence is to dictatorship as propaganda is to democracy.
        -- Noam Chomsky

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Franck Martin
Date:
Subject: RE: storing binary data - PGSQL book/documentation
Next
From: Victor Ivanov
Date:
Subject: C function and NULL result