From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA <leandro(at)dutra(dot)fastmail(dot)fm> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Date: | 2006-01-14 10:28:21 |
Message-ID: | 812B6253-520A-46E1-A120-011F23B558D7@myrealbox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 13, 2006, at 21:42 , Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
> If you still declare the natural key(s) as UNIQUEs, you have just made
> performance worse. Now there are two keys to be checked on UPDATEs
> and
> INSERTs, two indexes to be updated, and probably a SEQUENCE too.
For UPDATEs and INSERTs, the "proper" primary key also needs to be
checked, but keys are used for more than just checking uniqueness:
they're also often used in JOINs. Joining against a single integer
I'd think it quite a different proposition (I'd think faster in terms
of performance) than joining against, say, a text column or a
composite key.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lukas Smith | 2006-01-14 10:34:31 | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-01-14 09:13:47 | Re: message for constraint |