From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp>, techlist(at)voyager(dot)phys(dot)utk(dot)edu, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Duplicate key insert question |
Date: | 2003-07-02 01:43:03 |
Message-ID: | 20030702014303.GO27363@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:26:08PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > But you should try to use a sequence if at all possible to avoid all
> > these problems.
>
> Does not really avoid the named issue.
>
> Suppose that you have a dictionary of working part numbers (e.g. Boeing
> might have 3 million distinct parts in their database).
> They would like to create a domain for these parts. So, naturally, they
> take their list and do
> %cat list.dat|sort|uniq>list.sor
> And then bulk load list.sor.
Oh, sure. The sequence thing won't apply everywhere. But maybe it can
be applied in his scenario, which I don't know.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Voy a acabar con todos los humanos / con los humanos yo acabaré
voy a acabar con todos / con todos los humanos acabaré (Bender)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Christian Imbeault | 2003-07-02 01:43:48 | Re: Duplicate key insert question |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-07-02 01:36:36 | Re: Duplicate key insert question |