| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Israel Brewster <israel(at)ravnalaska(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "Keyed" sequence? |
| Date: | 2016-04-28 19:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwanUCZYVHCk+gnoqnHHsm_4_z-O6EXVYdH6u=7y6uCo6g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Israel Brewster <israel(at)ravnalaska(dot)net>
wrote:
>
> >
> > It'll kill your performance, but if aesthetics are that important to
> you...
>
> They're not *that* important. I was just asking if there was a way to do
> this easily.
>
While the performance argument might be true it is heavily dependent upon
concurrency. I'm doubting a PO system in the typical company has enough
concurrency, and is sensitivity enough to small delays,
that giving up the benefit of sequential numbering would be a worthwhile
trade-off.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Israel Brewster | 2016-04-28 19:29:52 | Re: "Keyed" sequence? |
| Previous Message | Israel Brewster | 2016-04-28 19:09:14 | Re: "Keyed" sequence? |