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
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 |