| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Shoaib Mir <shoaibmir(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 21 bit number for sequence |
| Date: | 2006-04-15 16:04:55 |
| Message-ID: | 18406.1145117095@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> If you just want to store numbers, use numeric. Why do you want to
> combine numeric and a sequence?
He could use a numeric column and write the default as
nextval('seq')::numeric
Of course, he'll be paying through the nose performance-wise for
his insistence on not fixing his Oracle-centric data representation,
but if programmer time is cheaper than machine time then maybe it's
the right tradeoff.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francisco Reyes | 2006-04-15 16:22:03 | Re: Asking advice on speeding up a big table |
| Previous Message | felix-accts-pgsql | 2006-04-15 15:49:11 | Re: Asking advice on speeding up a big table |