| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pabloa98 <pabloa98(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com>, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million) |
| Date: | 2020-03-20 05:45:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZOzgtAb27wnS9bj6QBYRuHShEEPgs4mGCEr4Qz0SUKbw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday, March 19, 2020, pabloa98 <pabloa98(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> We will use a CACHE 1. This is because when nextval('seq') is invoked, we
> are hitting 3 or 4 more tables so the sequence will not be a performance
> blocker (compared with all the operations in the transaction).
>
The other implementation detail to remember is:
“Because nextval and setval calls are never rolled back, sequence objects
cannot be used if “gapless” assignment of sequence numbers is needed.”
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matt Magoffin | 2020-03-20 09:17:40 | Duplicate key violation on upsert |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-03-20 05:39:50 | Re: Could postgres12 support millions of sequences? (like 10 million) |