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 Pilosov||Date: 2001-07-03 20:26:38|
|Subject: Re: funny (cache (?)) bug in postgres (7.x tested)|
|Previous:||From: Nathan Myers||Date: 2001-07-03 20:17:40|
|Subject: Re: Re: Backup and Recovery|