Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier

From: "Dmitry G(dot) Mastrukov" <dmitry(at)taurussoft(dot)org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier
Date: 2001-07-03 20:19:23
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Alex Pilosov writes:
>>Dmitry's stuff contains both datatype (uniqueidentifier), a function to
>>generate a new object of that type (newid), and a set of functions to
>>implement comparison operators for that type.
>>I don't see anything wrong with that setup, but maybe I'm still missing
>It would be much simpler if you stored the unique id in varchar or text.
Are you sure varchar comparision will be quickly than current 
implementation? Next, varchar will need 36 byte, uniqueidentifier takes 
16. Next, indexing - IMHO current stuff more suitable for indexes. Some 
time ago I saw some stuff which deals with uniqueidentifiers for 
Interbase. It uses your scheme with chars. But it strip "-" from string 
and reverts it to efficiently use indexes (uid sometimes uses 
MAC-address as part of itself, so MAC should go first in string). Weird 
scheme for me!


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2001-07-03 20:26:38
Subject: Re: funny (cache (?)) bug in postgres (7.x tested)
Previous:From: Nathan MyersDate: 2001-07-03 20:17:40
Subject: Re: Re: Backup and Recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group