From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Robert Wojciechowski <robertw(at)expressyard(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Change sort order on UUIDs? |
Date: | 2007-07-17 04:57:34 |
Message-ID: | 200707170457.l6H4vYa06199@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 19:04 , mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
>
> > For UUID, I
> > would value random access before sequential performance. Why would
> > anybody scan UUID through the index in "sequential" order?
>
> AIUI, to allow UUID columns to be indexed using BTREE, there needs to
> be some ordering defined. So regardless of what this ordering is,
> doesn't there need to be some order? And as a (primary?) purpose of
> UUIDs is to be (universally) unique, and the implementation of
> uniqueness constraints in PostgreSQL is based on BTREE indexes, this
> makes the necessity of ordering doubly so. Or have I missed something?
>
> Michael Glaesemann
> grzm seespotcode net
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-07-17 05:02:57 | Re: Rethinking user-defined-typmod before it's too late |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-07-17 04:48:55 | Re: Fractions in GUC variables |