Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E138664FD63 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:11:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55418-03-4 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:11:09 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp21.orange.fr (smtp21.orange.fr [80.12.242.49]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CC4650E9E for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:05:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2121.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9B3481C00043 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:05:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from axege.com (LNeuilly-152-22-82-133.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.23.133]) by mwinf2121.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7C60F1C0004C for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:05:38 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20080701150538509.7C60F1C0004C@mwinf2121.orange.fr Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axege.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322454FEE8 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:16:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at myhostname="axege.com." Received: from axege.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (axege.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDFmMndwZAky for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.0.69] (unknown [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by axege.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29AB74FE2D for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Does max size of varchar influence index size From: Franck Routier To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1214857494.6049.76.camel@localhost> References: <1214845078.6710.7.camel@franck-laptop> <1214857494.6049.76.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:05:36 +0200 Message-Id: <1214924736.668.22.camel@franck-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200807/6 X-Sequence-Number: 30606 Le lundi 30 juin 2008 à 13:24 -0700, Mark Roberts a écrit : Hi Mark, > Is there any particular reason that you're not using a surrogate key? Well, human readability is the main reason, no standard way to handle sequences between databases vendors being the second... (and also problems when copying data between different instances of the database). So surrogate keys could be a way, and I am considering this, but I'd rather avoid it :) Franck