X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29CBF30FA60 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:59:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (svr1.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80143-07 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:58:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from water.oasis.net.au (water.oasis.net.au [210.8.139.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8EF30FA43 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:58:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from oasis.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by water.oasis.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id IAA02145 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:15:03 +1000 X-Authentication-Warning: water.oasis.net.au: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] claimed to be oasis.net.au From: "Rudi Starcevic" To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Database design - AGAIN Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:15:03 +1000 Message-Id: <20030624221503.M77696@oasis.net.au> In-Reply-To: <200306240838.09929.jgardner@jonathangardner.net> References: <3EF7DF74.40700@oasis.net.au> <200306240838.09929.jgardner@jonathangardner.net> X-Mailer: Open WebMail X-OriginatingIP: 203.220.112.217 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Archive-Number: 200306/284 X-Sequence-Number: 14042 Josh, Jonathan .. Thanks for your replies. You mail was exactly what I was hoping for - your best practise opinion. I do have a grasp of the theory involved with SQL but your input on those 'other' constraints like time, language, longevity etc was just what I was interested in. I'll be using smaller tables with appropriate join tables and PHP. Just for interests sake I'll be using Dia to plan the schema. I prefer to use the UML drawing tools instead of the ER ones. Thank you. Best regards Rudi. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Monday 23 June 2003 22:19, Rudi Starcevic wrote: > > I"m not sure whether to have on larger table or 2 smaller one with a > > join table. > > Theory says you are better off with the join tables. Practical > reality agrees with this. It takes a bit more work to write your > select statements, but the data is better for at least these two reasons: > 1) You won't have a lot of empty columns. > 2) You will be able to add, rename, and remove features pretty easily. > There are more reasons, but they are not immediately obvious to the > untrained DBA. (Words like "data integrity" and "data consistency" > start to mean things when you become trained.) > > With that said, it sounds like you are really intermediate with > database design. If you were a beginner, and if you barely > understood what a table was, (and if you were the guy who would be > using it all the time,) I would probably suggest you use the former > method. It will work pretty well until you want to add more features > or until you start worrying about your database size. At that point, > I would explain how and why to use joins, and how to convert your > data over to the new design. > > - -- > Jonathan Gardner > (was jgardn@alumni.washington.edu) > Live Free, Use Linux! > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE++HBcWgwF3QvpWNwRAgjPAJ48syjGQahHvU4zi38WVheFbVFC5ACfQw5S > 0qO67ZB2ToO4zFJKoh5GtrU= > =PnFr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org