Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 characters...
But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue with me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same UPC, so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way I can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" productCategoryId="10002"... <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" idValue="798936836182"... <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... ...etc... And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to worry about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly blow away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were created using a consistent pattern. That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to live with it. On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? > > A few things come to mind: > - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed > - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client > - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever > > Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing > uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for > nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything > bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, > not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". > > Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. > Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong > language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is > unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. > > Regards > Scott > > > > On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <mz4whee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 > > compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the > > performance is fast. > > > > One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe > to > > 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are > > physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < > > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > > > > > For history sake: I committed localpostnew. > > > > > > After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't > > > find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in > > > localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. > > > > > > Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg > > to > > > revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres > > > > > > Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as > suggested > > > Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid > > confusion > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : > > > > > >> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: > > >> > > >> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" > > >> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> > > >> > > >> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly > > spell > > >> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I > would > > be > > >> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. > > >> > > >> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first > build a > > >> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. > > >> > > >> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed > > >> from > > >> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), > > >> which > > >> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. > > >> > > >> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" > > >> java-type="String"/> > > >> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" > > java-type="String"/> > > >> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" > > java-type="String"/> > > >> > > >> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what > > >> postgres says about type "TEXT".. > > >> > > >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html > > >> > > >> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, > apart > > >> > > >> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a > few > > >> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a > > >> length-constrained > > >> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other > > >> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact > > >> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its > > additional > > >> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be > > used > > >> instead. > > >> > > >> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> HI Mike, all, > > >>> > > >>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > > >>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > > >>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Pierre Smits > > >>> > > >>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > >>> OFBiz based solutions & services > > >>> > > >>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > >>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <mz4whee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > > >>>> > > >>> items: > > >>> > > >>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > > >>>> > > >>> group. > > >>> > > >>>> Requires tweaking: > > >>>> > > >>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > > >>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf > > >>>> > > >>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > > >>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: > > >>>> > > >>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > > >>>> > > >>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" > > >>>> java-type="String"/> > > >>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > > >>>> java-type="String"/> > > >>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > > >>>> java-type="String"/> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > > >>>> pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks so much Deepak! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Pranay Pandey > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > > >>>>> > > >>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > >>> > > >>>> com > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi Team, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > > >>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > > >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks & Regards > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Deepak Dixit > > >>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < > akash1.ja...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Akash Jain > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> com > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been > published > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> on > > >>>> > > >>>>> our > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > > >>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > > >>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > > >>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > > >>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit > > >>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
