Re: IS it a good practice to use SERIAL as Primary Key?

From: Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: carter ck <carterck32(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: IS it a good practice to use SERIAL as Primary Key?
Date: 2006-11-23 02:36:58
Message-ID: 376682.53088.qm@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> I am wonderring if it is a good practice to use SERIAL index as primary key,
> as it is only available up to 9999999?

That isn't true. It is much larger that that. If yor need more than that there is always
bigserial.

serial = int4
bigserial = int8

""
The type names serial and serial4 are equivalent: both create integer columns. The type names
bigserial and serial8 work just the same way, except that they create a bigint column. bigserial
should be used if you anticipate the use of more than 231 identifiers over the lifetime of the
table.
""
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-SERIAL

> Currently i am dealing with storing LDAP users into Postgres and i am
> looking for a better way to make use of the DN as primary key instead of
> SERIAL index.
>
> Any advice or suggestion is appreciated.

Here is a similar discussion that you may be enterested in:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-10/msg00024.php

Regards,

Richard Broersma Jr.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-11-23 04:02:13 Re: Possible problem with PQescapeStringConn and
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-11-23 02:33:10 Re: IS it a good practice to use SERIAL as Primary Key?