| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Null integer columns |
| Date: | 2005-01-08 21:55:49 |
| Message-ID: | 8512.1105221349@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> What are the performance tradeoffs (storage space, query speed) of using
> a NULL enabled column versus a NOT-NULL column with a sentinel integer
> value?
> Not that it matters, but in the event where the column values matter,
> the numberic value is a foreign key. Advice on that welcome too.
In that case you want to use NULL, because the foreign key mechanism
will understand that there's no reference implied. With a sentinel
value you'd have to have a dummy row in the master table --- which will
cause you enough semantic headaches that you don't want to go there.
The performance difference could go either way depending on a lot of
other details, but it will be insignificant in any case. Don't screw up
your database semantics for it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guenzl, Martin | 2005-01-09 04:44:30 | Help with EXPLAIN ANALYZE runtimes |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey Tenny | 2005-01-08 21:07:00 | Null integer columns |