Db2 – Does DB2 order data by the primary key

If ID1 is more selective than ID2, then construct your index over B with (ID1, ID2, Type_Code) , and make sure there is an index over A by (ID1, ID2).

If ID2 is more selective than ID1, then construct your index over B with (ID2, ID1, Type_Code) , and make sure there is an index over A by (ID2, ID1).

If you are using DB2 for i, then you might also try an Encoded Vector Index [EVI] over B on (Type_Code), in combination with an index by (ID1, ID2) [or the reverse order, as above]. However, the EVI seems unlikely to help in this case.

I think you're asking how to impliment a solution you'e already decided on for a more general problem you don't describe. If you were to outline the actual problem that this is supposed to solve you might get better suggestions about how to solve it.

Working within the very limited information provided:

Update: I found your other question, which you really should've linked to. You seem to be trying to roll your own message queue. Don't do that. Read these:

• https://stackoverflow.com/q/11914804/398670
• https://stackoverflow.com/q/13005410/398670
• https://stackoverflow.com/q/14515543/398670
• https://stackoverflow.com/q/15937377/398670
• https://stackoverflow.com/q/15736640/398670
• https://stackoverflow.com/q/11761281/398670

Have I convinced you that you shouldn't try to do this yourself yet? Look into:

• RabbitMQ
• ZeroMQ
• Job::Machine
• ActiveMQ
• PGQ
• Celery

Some of what you want isn't available in current PostgreSQL versions. For example:

• INSERTs should not do any query in that table or any kind of unique index. INSERTs shall just locate the best page for the main file/main btree for this table and just insert the row in between two other rows, ordered by ID.`

That'd require an index-organized table, which PostgreSQL doesn't have yet. The closest you'll get would be a one-column table with a PRIMARY KEY. With regular VACUUM on PostgreSQL 9.2 you'd be able to use index-only scans to access it most of the time.

As for allowing duplicates, you don't really seem to want to permit them at all, you're just saying you want to work around concurrency issues by temporarily permitting them.

You can remove such duplicates during INSERT so the table its self doesn't need to permit them. However, that'll cause issues with:

• INSERTs will happen in bulk (about 1000 per transaction) and must not fail, expect for disc full, etc. There must not be any chance for deadlocks.

... assuming that those inserts occur concurrently from multiple transactions. You'll have races between the checks for existence and the insert that can cause insert batches to fail and have to be re-tried.

I suspect that your best bet is to have a one-column table without a PRIMARY KEY. Just create an ordinary b-tree index on it, and leave the table without a PRIMARY KEY. Since it genuinely has no primary key (the only column may have duplicates) this is entirely reasonable.

(BTW, given that SQL is supposedly all about sets, it astounds me how awful it is at "add this entry to the set if not already present").