From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:20:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20020716192006.GC32419@wolff.to> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
References: <20020716114553.GB29323@wolff.to>
<web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:36:31 -0700,
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> > It wouldn't have to be a dummy table. You could have both sets of
> > data
> > in the same table.
>
> Per my original e-mail, this is not an option.
>
> Basically, the two tables have nothing in commmon *except* that events
> can be scheduled against either table. Otherwise, the two tables have
> vastly different data, which comes from completely different sources,
> and is related to a totally different set of dependant tables.
>
> So, no go.
>
> I run into this sort of thing a lot. Is it just the way I design
> databases, or is there a need for a more sophisticated model of
> relationality for SQL03?
This sounds like a design issue. This makes it seem like the events
should be broken out into their own table and the other two tables
should get joined with the events table when needed.
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: bruno@wolff.to, josh@agliodbs.com, sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
In-Reply-To: <20020716192006.GC32419@wolff.to>
* 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