Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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