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.
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? |