> > once inserted, a row keeps its oid. so, when performing complex
> > selects, i'll often grab the oid too... do some tests on
> the returned
> > values, and if an action is appropriate on that row, i
> reference it by
> > its oid. the only chance of this failing is if the
> database is dumped
> > then restored between the select and the update (not gonna
> happen, as
> > the program requires the database available for execution)... using
> > the oid this way, its often simpler and faster to update a
> known row,
> > especially when the initial select involved many fields.
>
> Yes, I use 'em the same way. I think an OID is kind of like a pointer
> in a C program: good for fast, unique access to an object within the
> context of the execution of a particular application (and maybe not
> even that long). You don't write pointers into files to be used again
> by other programs, though, and in the same way an OID isn't a good
> candidate for a long-lasting reference from one table to another.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I thought this special case is where the new xid access method would come
in.
It is actually a lot faster than oid access, since it marks the physical
position
that would otherwise need to be looked up in the oid index. This same oid
index
would also add unneeded overhead to the inserts and updates.
Is someone still working on the xid access ?
Andreas
