From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Date: | 2009-05-05 20:14:54 |
Message-ID: | 26269.1241554494@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm thinking plain old pairs-of-hex-digits might be the best
>> tradeoff if conversion speed is the criterion.
> That's a lot less space-efficient than base64, though.
Well, base64 could give a 33% savings, but it's significantly harder
to encode/decode. Also, since it has a much larger set of valid
data characters, it would be *much* more likely to allow old-style
formatting to be mistaken for new-style. Unless we can think of
a more bulletproof format selection mechanism, that could be
an overriding consideration.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-05 20:32:35 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-05-05 19:39:32 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |