| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Wampler <swampler(at)noao(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Postgres-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timestamp fields and order by? |
| Date: | 2010-01-06 20:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | 26079.1262810799@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Steve Wampler <swampler(at)noao(dot)edu> writes:
> It appears as though the timestamp resolution is now low
> enough that it cannot keep up with the speed at which
> items can be inserted.
Your example looks like what's being called is current_timestamp(3),
or else something on the client side is rounding it off to 3 digits.
The bare function will give whatever resolution the operating system
supplies, down to microseconds at best (the limit of the POSIX API for
this).
Even so, though, I think it would be quite foolish to design an
application around the assumption that the timestamps of successive
insertions will be distinguishable. Put in a serial column.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tim Uckun | 2010-01-06 20:46:51 | Re: PostgreSQL Write Performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 20:29:05 | Re: FM format modifier does not remove leading zero from year |