Matthieu Imbert wrote:
scenario 1 - parse the textual representation of all results of requests to the
database and convert textual timestamps to a binary
format that i choose among those ones (number of microseconds since 2000-01-01,
or a structure similar to pg_tm (but with
microsecond precision), or a time-format similar to one defined in rfc1305, or
something else)
or
scenario 2 - directly use pgsql binary timestamp format. I think the latter is
far more efficient. I'm new to postgresql, but from
what i understand, here are the conversions involved in both scenarios (hopping
that my ascii art won't be garbled by your mail
clients ;-) :
scenario 1:
.---------. .----------. .---------. .----------. .--------------.
.----------. .---------.
|timestamp| |pgsql | |timestamp| |pgsql | |timestamp | |my
| |my |
|storage |->|internal |->|storage |->|network |->|as |->|timestamp
|->|timestamp|
|in | |to | |in | |to | |textual |
|conversion| |format |
|database | |network | |network | |textual | |representation|
|routines | | |
|backend | |conversion| | | |conversion| | | |
| | |
| | |function | | | |function | | | |
| | |
'---------' '----------' '---------' '----------' '--------------'
'----------' '---------'
I think this scenario has two boxes too many. Why would the backend
convert to network representation before converting to text?
Jeroen
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
