From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: match an IP address |
Date: | 2008-09-23 13:06:24 |
Message-ID: | 48D8E9D0.6050703@wildenhain.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer wrote:
> Phoenix Kiula wrote:
>
>> 1. What extra tax will this constraint levy on an INSERT or UPDATE on
>> this table? There are about 100,000 inserts a day, and over three
>> times as many UPDATES. The concurrency is pretty high -- I mean
>> sometimes 1,000 users at the same time but no more than that. If the
>> additional cost of insertion/updating is not too heavy, I suppose this
>> could be a nice approach.
>
...
> I'd try a functional index first. If that didn't do the job, I'd use a
> trigger-maintained column _purely_ as an optimisation (ie I could drop
> it and lose no data) that stored text representations of the data.
> Honestly, though, I expect the functional index would be more than good
> enough and probably wouldn't have much of an INSERT/UPDATE cost.
>
> Again, of course, I'd test before setting anything in stone.
And do not forget you know beforehand if you are going to lookup a user
or an IP. So I fail to see what problem needs to be solved here :(
Maybe we can get an enlightenment on where every data comes from and
whats going to be its usage? Maybe we can then work out a better
solution at all? Peephole optimizing is great but sometimes the effect
is better if you just open the door :-)
Tino
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2008-09-23 15:37:53 | Re: match an IP address |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-09-23 12:42:47 | Re: match an IP address |