From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | fmiddleton(at)verizon(dot)net |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: can UNIQUEness of TEXT datatype really be guaranteed? |
Date: | 2005-11-22 17:50:42 |
Message-ID: | 12772.1132681842@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
<fmiddleton(at)verizon(dot)net> writes:
> So I can't help but wonder, can Postgres really guarantee a TEXT field to be UNIQUE... or is declaring a TEXT field UNIQUE something an uninformed, novice user would do?... or is it something indicative of the strength and/or weeknesses that separate the functionality of the two DBMSs.
In PG, it will work as long as no entry is too large to fit into a btree
index entry (from memory, about 2700 bytes after compression, so the
practical limit is probably 4KB or so).
If you think you might have entries exceeding a few KB, you could use
the trick of declaring a unique functional index on a checksum:
create unique index myindex on mytable (md5(fieldname));
This will work as long as you don't get any md5 hash collisions,
which is probably not a problem in practice. It will guarantee
uniqueness in any case; the risk is that you might get false matches
causing rejection of inputs that actually are distinct.
A possibly simpler-to-understand way is to demand uniqueness in the
first couple KB:
create unique index myindex on mytable (substr(fieldname,1,2000));
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-22 19:47:22 | Re: unplanned sub-select error? |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-11-22 17:45:36 | Re: can UNIQUEness of TEXT datatype really be guaranteed? |