| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Use of OIDS as primary keys | 
| Date: | 2002-05-14 05:36:39 | 
| Message-ID: | 20020514153639.A9380@svana.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:26:20PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> I'm also curious about the use of WITHOUT OIDS in the creation of
> tables.
> Somewhere I gleaned from the docs that OIDS aren't necessary, but they are
> a good idea when there is no primary key.  Thus, I've been adding "WITHOUT
> OIDS" on any table that has a primary key.
> Is there any drawback to this?  I figure it's saving 4 bytes per record,
> right? (it adds up when you have 100,000 records)
> But I don't understand why OIDs are ever necessary.  It seems like they
> could be useful at times, but if I need something that works like a
> primary key, I'll create a primary key.
> 
> I guess the ultimate question in all this is "Is there any ill effect from
> using WITHOUT OIDS on a table that doesn't have a primary key?"
OIDs are used extensivly in the system tables to reference functions,
tables, attributes etcetera. I don't beleive they were ever particularly
useful for non-system tables (hence the option to remove them).
Do they actually save spaces (consider alignment issues and such)?
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Canada, Mexico, and Australia form the Axis of Nations That
> Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-14 06:02:52 | Re: Use of OIDS as primary keys | 
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2002-05-14 04:17:09 | Re: Quotes in SQL |