Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
От | Michael Glaesemann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 812B6253-520A-46E1-A120-011F23B558D7@myrealbox.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Surrogate keys (Was: enums) (Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA<leandro@dutra.fastmail.fm>) |
Ответы |
Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 13, 2006, at 21:42 , Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote: > If you still declare the natural key(s) as UNIQUEs, you have just made > performance worse. Now there are two keys to be checked on UPDATEs > and > INSERTs, two indexes to be updated, and probably a SEQUENCE too. For UPDATEs and INSERTs, the "proper" primary key also needs to be checked, but keys are used for more than just checking uniqueness: they're also often used in JOINs. Joining against a single integer I'd think it quite a different proposition (I'd think faster in terms of performance) than joining against, say, a text column or a composite key. Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: