"Brian Peasland" <dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message
news:406C81CE.17FCE858_at_remove_spam.peasland.com...
> > errm and we aren't comparing to a number, but to a RAW column. unless
I've
> > missed the point entirely.
>
> I think you missed the point where the conversation turned....
>
> I was specifically replying to Randi's post of "How about the
> performance when using a string as Primary key - is there any
> significant difference compared to using a number?" In this question, it
> is talking about a string or a number field for a primary key, not a RAW
> column.
>
> Cheers!
> Brian
Ah I had the idea that we were talking about the same table, one that needs
a GUID as a primary key, which Randi was proposing to store in a RAW column.
FWIW I agree with what you said about the differences between the 2, only to
say that if this is a GUID type primary key one would probably need a huge
string to make any difference at all, since the index access would be by
equality (one would hope!) and for any given query lookup the height of the
index would have to be different - this needs a LOT more blocks.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
Received on Thu Apr 01 2004 - 23:54:27 CST
