From: | tsuraan <tsuraan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UUID as primary key |
Date: | 2009-10-10 05:14:27 |
Message-ID: | 84fb38e30910092214x1958c65dua0214f6b07a78512@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> The most significant impact is that it takes up twice as much space,
> including the primary key index. This means fewer entries per block,
> which means slower scans and/or more blocks to navigate through. Still,
> compared to the rest of the overhead of an index row or a table row, it
> is low - I think it's more important to understand whether you can get
> away with using a sequential integer, in which case UUID is unnecessary
> overhead - or whether you are going to need UUID anyways. If you need
> UUID anyways - having two primary keys is probably not worth it.
Ok, that's what I was hoping. Out of curiosity, is there a preferred
way to store 256-bit ints in postgres? At that point, is a bytea the
most reasonable choice, or is there a better way to do it?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-10-10 13:26:19 | Re: Databases vs Schemas |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-10 03:11:35 | Re: Databases vs Schemas |