| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "James B(dot) Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Primary Key |
| Date: | 2007-11-23 22:44:00 |
| Message-ID: | F123863D-4814-4EC1-9A4D-07DE2F7D4725@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Nov 23, 2007, at 17:35 , James B. Byrne wrote:
> Why is this desire not better satisfied by an index rather than a key?
What's your distinction between an index and a key? For what it's
worth, both UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constrain a column (or set of
columns) to be unique, or a key in the logical sense. Uniqueness is
implemented in terms of btree indexes in PostgreSQL. It seems to me
you're conflating logical (key) and physical (index) concepts here.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric Davies | 2007-11-24 00:51:53 | manipulating HeapTuples in a libpq client |
| Previous Message | James B. Byrne | 2007-11-23 22:35:34 | Re: Primary Key |