Dann,
> The primary key should be immutable, meaning that its value should not be
> changed during the course of normal operations of the database.
Why? I don't find this statement to be self-evident. Why would we have ON
UPDATE CASCADE if keys didn't change sometimes?
> At any rate, the us
Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:31 PM
> To: Jim C. Nasby
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: FW: [HACKERS] Surrogate keys
Em Qua, 2006-01-18 às 17:22 -0600, Jim C. Nasby escreveu:
> >
> > Forgive me my ignorance, but are ints inherently faster to compare than
> >strings, or is it just an implementation detail? Ideally, if this is so
> >a fully data-independent system would create a hash behind the back of
> >user
>> Comparing two ints is much, much faster than comparing two text
>> fields. For a small number of comparisons, it doesn't matter. When
>> you're joining tables together, it's a different story.
>
> That is where data independence would come handy... like a better enum,
>with possreps and hi
Ooops, fat-finger'd -hackers...
-Original Message-
Adding -hackers back to the list.
> From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
> Em Seg, 2006-01-16 às 12:52 -0600, Jim C. Nasby escreveu:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 07:28:21PM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> > >
> > > For UPDATEs a
