I like the idea, but I don't like the approach, it should be a subclass of PositiveIntegerField, as it is an unsigned int on DB level. Also, I agree with Łukasz that it should support both IPv6 and IPv4.
-- Best wishes, Dmitry Gladkov, mailto:dmitry.glad...@gmail.com +380 91 303-37-46 On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Javier Guerra Giraldez <jav...@guerrag.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez > <jav...@guerrag.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] >> <cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote: >>> It stores the IP address in integer form, meaning the lookups on large >>> tables are much faster: >> >> are they? hashtables shouldn't be too sensitive to key size, as >> long as the string size stays bounded... like on IP addresses (max 15 >> chars) > > OTOH, for really huge database tables, making the index 4 times > smaller can be a significant difference on RAM-starved servers.... > but to fill 1G can hold something like of 50million IP addresses in > text form... > > -- > Javier > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
