From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Luciano Coutinho Barcellos <luciano(at)geocontrol(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Advices on custom data type and extension development |
Date: | 2016-01-19 19:52:04 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=e=nVVkDoWRgq-d6SJGw2Qj5_b-cPthyWRhCG5jOJynbA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Seriously, you should consider having a primary key with two
> columns, of type date and int. It would take exactly the same
> space as your current plan, and performance should be very close to
> what you propose. As long as you aren't using some ORM that is too
> dumb to deal with this, it should be far easier than creating the
> custom type.
>
+1
Most ORMs cannot handle ENUMs, let alone user defined composite types.
That, or they *flood* the database with SELECT * FROM pg_type WHERE ...
queries. I'm looking at you, Cake.
You're far better off trying a (date,integer) key as Kevin said.
If the ORM doesn't allow that, I'd suggest a custom function that encodes
the date bit-shifted to the high 4 bytes, and then adds in the four bytes
from a cycling sequence. At least then you've got a shot at partitioning,
though the lower/upper bounds of the partitions would not make sense to the
casual observer.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-01-19 20:00:29 | Re: Advices on custom data type and extension development |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-19 19:34:50 | Re: PATCH: postpone building buckets to the end of Hash (in HashJoin) |