From: Valentin Bogdanov <valiouk@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Jay <arrival123@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Using PK value as a String
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:46:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <18986.60888.qm@web25807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874p5ruceg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
--- On Mon, 11/8/08, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> From: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Using PK value as a String
> To: "Jay" <arrival123@gmail.com>
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Date: Monday, 11 August, 2008, 10:30 AM
> "Jay" <arrival123@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I have a table named table_Users:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE table_Users (
> > UserID character(40) NOT NULL default
> '',
> > Username varchar(256) NOT NULL default
> '',
> > Email varchar(256) NOT NULL default
> ''
> > etc...
> > );
> >
> > The UserID is a character(40) and is generated using
> UUID function. We
> > started making making other tables and ended up not
> really using
> > UserID, but instead using Username as the unique
> identifier for the
> > other tables. Now, we pass and insert the Username to
> for discussions,
> > wikis, etc, for all the modules we have developed. I
> was wondering if
> > it would be a performance improvement to use the 40
> Character UserID
> > instead of Username when querying the other tables, or
> if we should
> > change the UserID to a serial value and use that to
> query the other
> > tables. Or just keep the way things are because it
> doesn't really make
> > much a difference.
>
> Username would not be any slower than UserID unless you
> have a lot of
> usernames longer than 40 characters.
>
> However making UserID an integer would be quite a bit more
> efficient. It would
> take 4 bytes instead of as the length of the Username which
> adds up when it's
> in all your other tables... Also internationalized text
> collations are quite a
> bit more expensive than a simple integer comparison.
>
> But the real question here is what's the better design.
> If you use Username
> you'll be cursing if you ever want to provide a
> facility to allow people to
> change their usernames. You may not want such a facility
> now but one day...
>
I don't understand Gregory's suggestion about the design. I thought using natural primary keys as opposed to surrogate ones is a better design strategy, even when it comes to performance considerations and even more so if there are complex relationships within the database.
Regards,
Valentin
> --
> Gregory Stark
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production
> Tuning
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
> (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
__________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: valiouk@yahoo.co.uk, arrival123@gmail.com, stark@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Using PK value as a String
In-Reply-To: <18986.60888.qm@web25807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox