The types referenced by the foreign keys are the same Numeric(20).
Since the complete schema (of about 300 tables) is generated, I will just try char(20) instead of numeric(20) in the
nextdays to see if it makes any difference. Which I somehow doubt.
But first I'm following the lead of the tables/indexes iostats given by Jeff.
obj_item_loc references the following three tables and there should be no surprises.
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE loc
(
loc_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,
...
CONSTRAINT loc_pkey PRIMARY KEY (loc_id),
…
)
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE obj_item
(
obj_item_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,
...
CONSTRAINT obj_item_pkey PRIMARY KEY (obj_item_id),
…
)
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE rptd
(
rptd_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,
...
CONSTRAINT rptd_pkey PRIMARY KEY (rptd_id),
…
)
On 12.01.2013, at 23:18, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Horst Dehmer <horst.dehmer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the ids is something I don't like either.
>> They carry additional semantics, which I cannot make go away.
>> How are chances char(20) is more time efficient than numeric(20)?
>> Disk space is no problem here.
>
> What are the other tables like then?
>
> The exact data types involved are at issue here, so it matters.
