From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
Cc: | PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoiding surrogate keys |
Date: | 2010-05-04 14:16:35 |
Message-ID: | z2nb42b73151005040716rcafdfff7scc1ec0f96b11ca92@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:14 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> If your 'natural key' is a large text field, I'd have to assume there's some
>> point at which a surrogate index would be more efficient. Would this be
>> above a few dozen characters, or a few 100 characters? I wouldn't want a
>> PK based on a multi-K byte text field for a table that has many 10s or 100s
>> of 1000s of rows, for sure.
one more note about this. if you truly have a situation where a multi
kilobyte chunk of data is the key, you can always digest it and use
that. you lose the natural ordering -- but in these type of cases it
usually doesn't matter.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pasher | 2010-05-04 14:17:27 | Re: Latest source RPMs for 8.1.20 |
Previous Message | Kalai R | 2010-05-04 14:15:57 | Re: Fwd: Tablespace Problem |