Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.92.219.49])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E694475876
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:14:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 32692 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jul 2002 19:20:06 -0000
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:20:06 -0500
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
Message-ID: <20020716192006.GC32419@wolff.to>
Mail-Followup-To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <20020716114553.GB29323@wolff.to>
	<web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
X-Archive-Number: 200207/246
X-Sequence-Number: 8624

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.