| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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!"
| 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) |