Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] is a good practice to create an index on the
От | Bruno Wolff III |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] is a good practice to create an index on the |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040428083223.GA8384@wolff.to обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] is a good practice to create an index on the (Edoardo Ceccarelli <eddy@axa.it>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:13:14 +0200, Edoardo Ceccarelli <eddy@axa.it> wrote: > do you mean that, declaring an index serial, I'd never have to deal with > incrementing its primary key? good to know! That isn't what is happening. Serial is a special type. It is int plus a default rule linked to a sequence. No index is created by default for the serial type. Declaring a column as a primary key will however create a unique index on that column. Also note that you should only assume that the serial values are unique. (This assumes that you don't use setval and that you don't roll a sequence over.) Within a single session you can assume the sequence values will be monotonicly increasing. The values that end up in your table can have gaps. Typically this happens when a transaction rolls back after obtaining a new value from a sequence. It can also happen if you grab sequence values in larger blocks (which might be more efficient if a session normally acquires mulitple values from a particular sequence) than the default 1. > anyway in this particular situation I don't need such accurate > behaviour: this table is filled up with a lot of data twice per week and > it's used only to answer queries. > I could drop it whenever I want :) You really don't want to use oids.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: