| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Global Sequences |
| Date: | 2012-10-16 13:15:54 |
| Message-ID: | 201210161515.54895.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 02:58:11 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 08:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Option 4 is of course to use UUIDs.
>
> Yeah, I was wondering what this would really solve that using UUIDs
> wouldn't solve.
Large indexes over random values perform notably worse than mostly/completely
ordered ones as they can be perfectly packed. Beside the fact that uuids have
2/4 times the storage overhead of int4/int8.
That has influences both in query and modification performance.
Also, not allowing plainly numeric pk's makes porting an application pretty
annoying...
Greetings,
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-10-16 13:20:54 | Re: Global Sequences |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-10-16 12:58:11 | Re: Global Sequences |