Re: question on serial key

From: Brandon Metcalf <brandon(at)geronimoalloys(dot)com>
To: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: question on serial key
Date: 2009-05-22 14:05:25
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58L.0905220904060.17654@cedar.geronimoalloys.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

g == gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com writes:

g> you should use it, whenever you need db to keep its own key internally.
g> Advantage of sequence is also the fact, that you can have the sequence
g> value used on different columns/tables .

g> My rule of thumb is , in that case: as long as it is a short type (not
g> of toastable, or/and variable length), and as long as it won't change,
g> and is unique - I can use it. Otherwise, I use sequence to connect
g> rows internally for database.
g> First rule, is because of index access, and the way btree works.
g> Second is, because update of value will update other rows too - and
g> HOT won't help you here, so that's not efficient. And also, forcing it
g> to be unique is harder than.

g> Hth.

That does help. So, in my example of a table consisting of rows for
each periodic table element, the atomic number would suffice as a
unique key since, well, it's unique and not going to change. Right?

--
Brandon

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2009-05-22 14:12:12 Re: question on serial key
Previous Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2009-05-22 13:56:08 Re: question on serial key