Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 03:54:36PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>> I have to concur with this. Assume you use a bytea for a UUID that in
>> turn is used as a primary key. The extra overhead will be reflected in
>> all indexes, all foreign keys, etc. In a normalized database some tables
>> may consist of UUID columns only.
> So you create a UUID type. It's cheap enough to create new types after
> all, that's one of postgresql's strengths.
It would be a whole lot easier if I could use a domain.
> What I'm saying is that it's
> easier to create new fixed length types for the cases that need it,
> than it is to redo the entire type handling of the backend.
Of course. But it's a matter of who does what. Your reasoning push the
burden to the users.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-06-29 16:41:29|
|Subject: Re: Index corruption |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-06-29 16:35:12|
|Subject: Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2006-06-29 16:40:49|
|Subject: Re: Database connectivity using a unix shell|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-06-29 16:32:56|
|Subject: Re: Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as|