From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
To: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
Cc: Chad Wagner <chad.wagner@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: extract(field from timestamp) vs date dimension
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:20:47 +1300
Message-ID: <45B6D08F.5090104@paradise.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070123133548.GA17420@oppetid.no>
References: <20070123124937.GA13122@oppetid.no>
<81961ff50701230524y14aa883alfe4dab8d1dd5cf10@mail.gmail.com>
<20070123133548.GA17420@oppetid.no>
Tobias Brox wrote:
>
> I suppose the strongest argument for introducing date dimensions already
> now is that I probably will benefit from having conform and
> well-designed dimensions when I will be introducing more data marts. As
> for now I have only one fact table and some few dimensions in the
> system.
>
Another factors to consider is that end user tools (and end users) may
find a date/time dimension helpful.
Best wishes
Mark
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: markir@paradise.net.nz, tobias@nordicbet.com, chad.wagner@gmail.com
Subject: Re: extract(field from timestamp) vs date dimension
In-Reply-To: <45B6D08F.5090104@paradise.net.nz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox