Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 20 July 2015 at 14:33, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If I'm not mistaken, the conclusions from posts in this thread are: > > > > 3. there are methods (like cryptographic "random" sequence), which > > guarantee no conflicts. So one should resort to that. > > > > > Some web research suggests that random sequences are not great for indexes > because of the resultant "keyspace fragmentation". I'm assuming that means > a low number of nodes in the btree leafs, so an increase in memory usage > for the index? Not sure what type of indexes would be affected by that problem, but I don't think Postgres' btrees would be. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
