Re: question on serial key

From: "Roderick A(dot) Anderson" <raanders(at)cyber-office(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: question on serial key
Date: 2009-05-22 14:26:35
Message-ID: 4A16B61B.6090608@cyber-office.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Brandon Metcalf wrote:
> g == gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com writes:
>
> g> you should use it, whenever you need db to keep its own key internally.
> g> Advantage of sequence is also the fact, that you can have the sequence
> g> value used on different columns/tables .
>
> g> My rule of thumb is , in that case: as long as it is a short type (not
> g> of toastable, or/and variable length), and as long as it won't change,
> g> and is unique - I can use it. Otherwise, I use sequence to connect
> g> rows internally for database.
> g> First rule, is because of index access, and the way btree works.
> g> Second is, because update of value will update other rows too - and
> g> HOT won't help you here, so that's not efficient. And also, forcing it
> g> to be unique is harder than.
>
> g> Hth.
>
> That does help. So, in my example of a table consisting of rows for
> each periodic table element, the atomic number would suffice as a
> unique key since, well, it's unique and not going to change. Right?

Well you never know. They took planet status away from Pluto. :-)

\\||/
Rod
--

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam Mason 2009-05-22 14:33:34 Re: question on serial key
Previous Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2009-05-22 14:12:12 Re: question on serial key