Re: Nothing larger then int8?

From: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nothing larger then int8?
Date: 2001-01-18 05:39:56
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.10.10101180039320.31343-100000@spider.pilosoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

To answer your question, wouldn't numeric(30,0) be the correct?

-alex
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

>
> hrrmm ... ignore this ... I'm suspecting that what I did was copied in
> sum() data from an old table that had bytes declared as int4, without
> casting it to int8 before storing it to the new table ...
>
> if anyone is interested, here is one days worth of http traffic for the
> main PostgreSQL.Org server ... this doesn't include the traffic that the
> mirror sites absorb:
>
> 1160643846 / ( 1024 * 1024 * 1024 )
> 1.08gig
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm logging traffic to a database, so that I can do analysis on usage and
> > whatnot, and I need something bigger then int8 :(
> >
> > /tmp/psql.edit.70.79087: 6 lines, 222 characters.
> > ip | maxbytes | port | runtime
> > ---------------+-------------+------+------------------------
> > 216.126.84.28 | 2169898055 | 80 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | 160579228 | 873 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | 365270 | 20 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | 196256 | 21 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | 195238 | 22 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | 182492 | 1024 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | 171155 | 143 | 2001-01-16 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-13 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-04 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-05 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-06 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-07 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-08 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1392384544 | 80 | 2001-01-14 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1452855018 | 80 | 2001-01-15 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1452855018 | 80 | 2001-01-10 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1452855018 | 80 | 2001-01-09 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1513325492 | 80 | 2001-01-03 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1694736914 | 80 | 2001-01-12 00:00:00-05
> > 216.126.84.28 | -1815677862 | 80 | 2001-01-11 00:00:00-05
> >
> > hub_traf_stats=# \d daily_stats
> > Table "daily_stats"
> > Attribute | Type | Modifier
> > -----------+-----------+----------
> > ip | inet |
> > port | integer |
> > bytes | bigint |
> > runtime | timestamp |
> >
> > do we have anything larger to work with? I've checked docs, but that
> > looks like about it :(
> >
> > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> > Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> > primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
> >
> >
>
> Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-01-18 05:58:56 Re: Datetime regression tests are all failing
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2001-01-18 05:17:34 Re: Nothing larger then int8?