Jim Crate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> on 7/15/03, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
>>to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
>>think I could save about 25% of my table size.
>
> Why d
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types? I don't think so.
>> If I succeed in implementing them, would you accept a patch?
>
> You can have unsigned integers using a domain with a check constraint.
They take twice as much storage as neces
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:59:34 +0200,
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
> to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
> think I could save about 25% of my table size.
>
> Does PostgreSQL a
If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
think I could save about 25% of my table size.
Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types? I don't think so.
If I succeed in implementing them, would
