From: | "Dmitry G(dot) Mastrukov" <dmitry(at)taurussoft(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier |
Date: | 2001-07-03 20:19:23 |
Message-ID: | 3B4228CB.5060907@taurussoft.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
>>something?
>>
>
>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!
regards,
Dmitry
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-07-03 20:26:38 | Re: funny (cache (?)) bug in postgres (7.x tested) |
Previous Message | Nathan Myers | 2001-07-03 20:17:40 | Re: Re: Backup and Recovery |