| From: | "Brian McKiernan" <brian(dot)mckiernan(at)firstcircle(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Advice on Contiguous IDs |
| Date: | 2018-01-09 09:06:26 |
| Message-ID: | 5a546fcab6ae2e0000bdb8e4@polymail.io |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hi Folks,
Looking for some help/advice - not sure if this is the appropriate channel.
My Issue:
My primary keys in a certain table are not contiguous.
What I have done so far:
I have checked the documentation and found: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_are_there_gaps_in_the_numbering_of_my_sequence.2FSERIAL_column.3F_Why_aren.27t_my_sequence_nu ( https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_are_there_gaps_in_the_numbering_of_my_sequence.2FSERIAL_column.3F_Why_aren.27t_my_sequence_numbers_reused_on_transaction_abort.3F )
mbers_reused_on_transaction_abort.3F ( https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_are_there_gaps_in_the_numbering_of_my_sequence.2FSERIAL_column.3F_Why_aren.27t_my_sequence_numbers_reused_on_transaction_abort.3F )
My Question:
1) What event would cause the CACHE clause in CREATE SEQUENCE to make an out of sequence next number?
2) In all cases am I correct in my thinking that in order to create contiguous primary key IDs then performance will greatly suffer? Do we have an idea of how bad this will generally be or what does that depend upon?
Many thanks in advance,
Brian
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2018-01-09 13:05:42 | Describe UNION's cast on derived table |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-01-06 18:15:15 | Re: Is this still accurate? |