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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
