On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:14 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> If your 'natural key' is a large text field, I'd have to assume there's some >> point at which a surrogate index would be more efficient. Would this be >> above a few dozen characters, or a few 100 characters? I wouldn't want a >> PK based on a multi-K byte text field for a table that has many 10s or 100s >> of 1000s of rows, for sure. one more note about this. if you truly have a situation where a multi kilobyte chunk of data is the key, you can always digest it and use that. you lose the natural ordering -- but in these type of cases it usually doesn't matter. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
