Re: select/update performance?
От | Rob Fielding |
---|---|
Тема | Re: select/update performance? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3FA8D4F2.7080600@dsvr.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: select/update performance? (Bjørn T Johansen <btj@havleik.no>) |
Ответы |
Re: select/update performance?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Bjørn T Johansen wrote: > Yes, but the table in question have 3 PK and only one that needs this > "sequence" so I just thought instead of getting holes in the IDs I just > manually handle this counter somehow.. Not a big deal but... :) You'd only get holes if you keep making nextval requests without using the value - say by issuing rollback. The problem with holes is actually the feature of uniqueness SEQUENCES provides. Perhaps you judge that there is too high a chance of rollback to create a sufficient number of holes to warrant not using a SEQUENCE. It's all down to your application and specific situation I guess however your counter table idea sounds exactly like what SEQUENCE provides, without any of the guarantees. I think I'd still recommend using a SEQUENCE for anything but the most profound reason :) -- Rob Fielding rob@dsvr.net Development Designer Servers Ltd
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: