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 next days 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Horst Dehmer <horst.dehmer@xxxxxxxxx> 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. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
