Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type
Date
Msg-id 21027.1122532815@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type  (Gregory Youngblood <pgcluster@netio.org>)
List pgsql-general
Gregory Youngblood <pgcluster@netio.org> writes:
> On Jul 27, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You'd have to translate that to NUMERIC, which would work but would
>> take a bit of a performance hit ...

> The most common places I've seen unsigned bigint used have been
> primary keys for tables where the counter is expected to basically
> grow forever. I've also seen it used to store unique user id numbers
> instead of varchar fields.

[ shrug... ]  So store it as plain bigint.  There is not any real
difference between 2^63 and 2^64 available values --- either way,
we'll all be safely dead before overflow occurs.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrading from 7.1
Next
From: denis@edistar.com
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql with max_connections=4096