Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns

At 11:52 PM 1/24/00 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:

>But the decision was (from Vadim IIRC) to drop them, at least in non system
>tables.
>The cited reasons were:
>* crappy implementation that taxed performance (probably fixed by now)
>* nobody else seemed to have them and the push then was to the direction of
> mainstream bean-counting DB with main objective of getting that base
> functionality right.

Regarding this last, Oracle has an equivalent - rowid. In the web
toolkit I'm helping port, it's used somewhat often, and having oid
available has been a convenience.

Having said that, its use in this toolkit's could be replaced by
simply creating a sequence and numbering rows by hand. Their loss
wouldn't bother me particularly even though it would add a little
work (not much) to this project.

>* they take up "too much" space (probably a non-issue in current world of
> dropping disk/memory prices)
>* you can always re-implement them at the application level (the same was
>cited
> for dropping time travel)

Yep!

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.