Hi Mike,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. I hasn't came across TEXT data
type before, I just Google it and seems not a ISO standard data type, only
specific to postgreSQL, but it does have the advantage you mentioned. And
yes we are building a new system and will be using PostgreSQL.

So is this fieldtypepostnew.xml a recommended one to use for all new OFBIZ
system please? Will it have any bad side effect since it's not a standard
data type please? E.g. in future upgrade etc... Thank you very much!

Kind Regards

Fong



On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Compare the following three files:
>
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostgres.xml
> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypepostnew.xml
>
> I bet you are using mysql, or maybe even postgres, which has very LIMITED
> key value lengths.  In the real world, you never know what key length you
> may need in the future, so why limit yourself?  Now take a look at
> "postnew", which uses a generic "text" type for almost all the fields.  It
> allows ANY key length, which allows the flexibility to create logical
> relations, even for part numbers that may be 60 characters or so.
>
> I learned this the hard way, when I came across long part numbers, and
> struggled to figure out a way to logically store them.  Back then I was
> using mysql.  I made the hard conversion to postgres, using
> "postnew", defined in:
>
> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml:
> <datasource name="localpostnew"
>              field-type-name="postnew"
>
> And never had a problem since.  You can then use UUID for anything.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Ofbiz 开发 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am considering using Java UUID for the ProductID (
> > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html ), but that
> > requires at least varchar (32), and the current ProductID field in
> database
> > is only varchar(20), how hard is it to change to varchar(32) please? Is
> > there any plan in Ofbiz trunk to change this to varchar(32) please? It
> > seems better than using sequence.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> > Fong
> >
>

Reply via email to