Re: Re: Re: is PG able to handle a >500 GB Database?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Brett W(dot) McCoy" <bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net>
Cc: rob <rob(at)cabrion(dot)com>, Florent Guillaume <efgeor(at)noos(dot)fr>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: is PG able to handle a >500 GB Database?
Date: 2001-01-20 16:42:37
Message-ID: 1672.980008957@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net> writes:
>> last_value will return whatever value was last assigned
>> by any backend, therefore you might not get the value that was inserted
>> into your tuple, but someone else's.

> In that case you would call next_val *before* you insert and use that
> value in the INSERT statement.

Yup, that works too. Which one you use is a matter of style, I think.
(Actually I prefer the nextval-first approach myself, just because it
seems simpler and more obviously correct. But currval-after does work.)

To bring this discussion back to the original topic: sequences are also
4-byte counters, at present. But there's still some value in using a
sequence to label rows in a huge table, rather than OIDs. Namely, you
can use a separate sequence for each large table. That way, you only
get into trouble when you exceed 4G rows entered into a particular
table, not 4G rows created in the entire database cluster.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message rob 2001-01-20 16:47:51 currval was (Re: Re: Re: is PG able to handle a >500 GB Database? )
Previous Message Brett W. McCoy 2001-01-20 16:36:41 Re: Re: Re: is PG able to handle a >500 GB Database?