Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] UUID's as primary keys

From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UUID's as primary keys
Date: 2006-06-29 16:40:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
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.

Thomas Hallgren

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-29 16:41:29
Subject: Re: Index corruption
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-29 16:35:12
Subject: Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2006-06-29 16:40:49
Subject: Re: Database connectivity using a unix shell
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-06-29 16:32:56
Subject: Re: Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group