Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)

From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)
Date: 2020-03-20 23:56:23
Message-ID: 796417DB-2DCB-4667-99B5-A8919358792E@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> On Mar 20, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> wrote:
>
> 
>>
>>
>> OP has said small gaps are ok.
>
> Yes. This wasn't a response to the OP's requirements, but to David's
> (rather knee-jerk, IMHO) "don't use sequences" response. Very often the
> requirements which would preclude sequences also preclude any other
> solution.
>
> (In the case of the OP's problem, I'd agree that sequences are probably
> a bad idea for the reasons he anticipates)
>
>> To me that says the requirement
>
> Which requirement? The OP's or the one I posed here?
>
>> is capricious but we haven’t heard the rationale for the requirement
>> yet (or I missed it)
>
> The OP gave a rationale: He has to fit the counter into an 8-digit
> field, and a global counter would overflow that. So he needs per-element
> counters.
>
> hp

Isn’t that the implementation of a req along the lines of “we want to number the occurrences of these pairs because ...”?
>
> --
> _ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
> |_|_) | |
> | | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
> __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2020-03-21 00:53:11 Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)
Previous Message Peter J. Holzer 2020-03-20 23:29:29 Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million)