| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: OID Perfomance - Object-Relational databases |
| Date: | 2000-10-04 04:10:34 |
| Message-ID: | web-1096365@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Tom,
> The trouble with pg_dump -o is that after reload, the OID
> generator
> will be set to max(any OID in the dumped data). So a
> dump & reload
> doesn't do anything to postpone OID-wraparound Ragnarok.
>
> As for the likelihood of overflow, figure 4G / tuple
> creation rate
> for your installation (not database, but whole
> installation controlled
> by one postmaster). Unless your installation has just
> one active
> table, per-table sequence values look like a better bet.
Somebody (urgently) needs to tell all of the above to Bruce
Momjian (I've cc'd him); his book-in-the-making points up
OID's as a convenient and universal way to identify and link
tuples (chapter 7) and doen't mention these problems. Who
can I bug about how useless the above makes OID's?
Thanks for the warning, and thanks Michael for the
suggestion; I'll use it and send you all back notes on how
it affects performance.
-Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Ansley | 2000-10-04 09:27:20 | RE: OID Perfomance - Object-Relational databases |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-04 03:43:51 | Re: OID Perfomance - Object-Relational databases |