Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Alex Pilosov writes:
>
>>Dmitry's stuff contains both datatype (uniqueidentifier), a function to
>>generate a new object of that type (newid), and a set of functions to
>>implement comparison operators for that type.
>>
>>I don't see anything wrong with that setup, but maybe I'm still missing
>>something?
>>
>
>It would be much simpler if you stored the unique id in varchar or text.
>
Are you sure varchar comparision will be quickly than current
implementation? Next, varchar will need 36 byte, uniqueidentifier takes
16. Next, indexing - IMHO current stuff more suitable for indexes. Some
time ago I saw some stuff which deals with uniqueidentifiers for
Interbase. It uses your scheme with chars. But it strip "-" from string
and reverts it to efficiently use indexes (uid sometimes uses
MAC-address as part of itself, so MAC should go first in string). Weird
scheme for me!
regards,
Dmitry