Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:26:00 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: OT: OpenDatabase Model ?
Message-ID: <20060817102600.GA27495@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <44E343D6.1010906@solnet.homeip.net>
	<20060816190724.GE25228@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<44E37A1A.7080006@solnet.homeip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44E37A1A.7080006@solnet.homeip.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Jesper K. Pedersen wrote:
> The opendatabase model actually offered a standard set of table 
> definitions covering a wide range of data storage.
> 
> Of course this means that the tables would often have stuff you dont 
> need, and may not have the things you need, but at least there is a 
> common "thread" in how you different databases look. For the big company 

Ick.  I confess my reaction is mostly aesthetic, but still.  Why
don't coding practices and column naming conventions get you this? 
That way, you can make your physical data model resemble your logical
data model, rather than pounding with a big hammer on your logical
model to make the physical storage you have fit?

The database is not a filesystem.  If you just need a filesystem and
a SQL-like interface to it, use MySQL 3.x.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
		--Roger Brinner