Jeroen Vermeulen wrote: > 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 >
You mean that when results are asked in textual representation (the default), data is sent on network directly as text? -- Matthieu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
