| From: | "Keith G(dot) Murphy" <keithmur(at)mindspring(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 4 billion record limit? |
| Date: | 2000-07-28 16:48:10 |
| Message-ID: | 3981B94A.E0524AA0@mindspring.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-novice |
Mitch Vincent wrote:
>
> There is something else that many aren't considering. In every application
> I've ever written to use any database I use ID numbers of my own making,
> always they're integer. 4 billion is the limit on any integer field, not
> just the OID so there are limitations everyone should realize when using any
> integer for any kind of record identification purposes..
>
That's an excellent point, especially considering that *sequences* use
an integer to hold their max_value, which is by default 2,147,483,647.
You cannot go larger than that, either. I guess it's constrained to be
positive. So OIDs give you more potential unique values than sequences,
far as I can tell.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-07-28 16:52:57 | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-28 16:22:37 | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Caskey | 2000-07-28 17:06:26 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
| Previous Message | Mitch Vincent | 2000-07-28 12:43:29 | Re: Re: 4 billion record limit? |