what's the performance difference between int and varchar for primary keys
- by user568576
I need to create a primary key scheme for a system that will need peer to peer replication. So I'm planning to combine a unique system ID and a sequential number in some way to come up with unique ID's. I want to make sure I'll never run out of ID's, so I'm thinking about using a varchar field, since I could always add another character if I start running out. But I've read that integers are better optimized for this. So I have some questions...
1) Are integers really better optimized? And if they are, how much of a performance difference is there between varchars and integers? I'm going to use firebird for now. But I may switch later. Or possibly support multiple db's. So I'm looking for generalizations, if that's possible.
2) If integers are significantly better optimized, why is that? And is it likely that varchars will catch up in the future, so eventually it won't matter anyway?
My varchar keys won't have any meaning, except for the unique system ID part. But I may want to obscure that somehow. Also, I plan to efficiently use all the bits of each character. I don't, for example, plan to code the integer 123 as the character string "123". So I don't think varchars will require more space than integers.
