From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, "Mario Weilguni" <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>, valiouk(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, Jay <arrival123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using PK value as a String |
Date: | 2008-08-12 14:29:17 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150808120729x79f893f1m6fc97c6c71a8c44b@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>
>> - Increased keyspace. Even if keyspace allocation is performed, an int4 only
>> has 32-bit of keyspace to allocate. The IPv4 address space is already over 85%
>> allocated as an example of how this can happen. 128-bits has a LOT more
>> keyspace than 32-bits or 64-bits.
>
> The rest of your points are valid (though not particularly convincing to me
> for most applications) but this example is bogus. The IPv4 address space is
> congested because of the hierarchic nature of allocations. Not because there
> is an actual shortage of IPv4 addresses themselves. There would be enough IPv4
> for every ethernet device on the planet for decades to come if we could
> allocate them individually -- but we can't.
Only because of NAT. There are a _lot_ of IP devices out there maybe
not billions, but maybe so, and 'enough for decades' is quite a
stretch.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bill Moran | 2008-08-12 15:04:16 | Re: Using PK value as a String |
Previous Message | Moritz Onken | 2008-08-12 14:17:58 | Re: Using PK value as a String |