[HACKERS] well, now i wish we hadn't gutted the ipv6 support

2001-04-22 Thread Paul A Vixie
Forwarded Message Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Paul A Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Appliance caching server configuration database schema In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Gustafsson) Paul A.

Re: [HACKERS] well, now i wish we hadn't gutted the ipv6 support

2001-04-22 Thread Paul A Vixie
> AFAIK we never actually *had* IPV6 support in those datatypes, only > stubs for it. the inet_net_pton implementation that was brought in from BIND had its IPv6 portions scrubbed. micro-over-optimization of the contributed "bitncmp" caused the "ipv4 as int" assumption to reoccur. i'm going to

Re: [HACKERS] how do i store \0 inside a text attribute?

2000-12-29 Thread Paul A Vixie
> See bytea, though its presentation format leaves something to be desired IMHO > > > how would someone be expected to store, say, a GIF image in a TOAST text? > > One would not. A TOASTed bytea is the appropriate column type. thanks -- that's EXACTLY what i needed.

[HACKERS] how do i store \0 inside a text attribute?

2000-12-29 Thread Paul A Vixie
for my pgcat utility i now know i have to use \nnn octal quoting for nonprintables in the generated INSERT commands. but in testing, i found the following oddity. this is in 7.1-b1 (cvs-current). vixie=> create table foo ( bar text ); CREATE vixie=> insert into foo value

Re: [HACKERS] performance modality in 7.1 for large text attributes?

2000-12-20 Thread Paul A Vixie
> > anybody know what i could be doing wrong? (i'm also wondering why SELECT > > takes ~250ms whereas INSERT takes ~70ms... seems counterintuitive, unless > > TOAST is doing a LOT better than i think.) > > I would think that this is entirely due to planning the query. An INSERT > has no decision

[HACKERS] day 2 results

2000-12-20 Thread Paul A Vixie
the prior results (http://www.vix.com/~vixie/pgsql-results.png) showed: ~70ms usual INSERT time (~1.5sec -> ~1.25sec occasional) ~250ms usual SELECT time (~1.5sec occasional) changing the attribute i key by to be PRIMARY KEY improved things a lot; the new results (http://www.vix.

Re: [HACKERS] performance modality in 7.1 for large text attributes?

2000-12-20 Thread Paul A Vixie
> 1) Have you ran vacuum analyze after all these inserts to update database > statistics? :) Without vacuum, pgsql will opt to table scan even when > there's an index. i hadn't, but i did, and it didn't make that particular difference: vixie=# explain select file from rss where addr = '1

[HACKERS] performance modality in 7.1 for large text attributes?

2000-12-18 Thread Paul A Vixie
(plz cc me on your replies, i'm not on pgsql-hackers for some reason.) http://www.vix.com/~vixie/results-psql.png shows a gnuplot of the wall time of 70K executions of "pgcat" (shown below) using a CIDR key and TEXT value. (this is for storing the MAPS RSS, which we presently have in flat files.)