| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | MaRcElO PeReIrA <gandalf_mp(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lock strategies! |
| Date: | 2003-11-24 16:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20031124112724.53cda3e7.threshar@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:48:26 -0300 (ART)
MaRcElO PeReIrA <gandalf_mp(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> The biggest problem it that I *can't* have holes in
> that column, so it was because I used id (serial) and
> forn_id (integer).
>
Well, if you cannot use a sequence you will have no choice but to use
locking.
don't use max - it isn't fast on PG use select forn_id from thetable
order by fornid desc limit 1. You'll need an index on forn_id or
performance will suffer.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-11-24 16:43:14 | Re: updated linux startup script? |
| Previous Message | MaRCeLO PeReiRA | 2003-11-24 16:18:46 | Re: Lock strategies! |