Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:59:02 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Database normalization
Message-ID: <20070828145902.GB847@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <99b656cb0708210709j5182b73cna63a2d275efa0e84@mail.gmail.com>
	<99b656cb0708280447x4eb7c45axec01c8d0ebc6c82d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070828132604.GB461@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<99b656cb0708280737l3d50585fifcfef7103b26059b@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <99b656cb0708280737l3d50585fifcfef7103b26059b@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:22PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
> Thanks for the information.
> 
> Both tables would be exactly sames apart from the  foreign key relation to
> clients or services.

Hmm.  Are the services or clients tables different?  A useful rule of
thumb is that, to the extent you can sort things into "kinds of
data", then you should have exactly one space for each one.  (I hope
that's clear.)

> Another factor ive been considering is that one of the fields in this
> table(s) definition(s) is free flowing text which could potentially become
> very large. Should I take this in to
> consideration when deciding whether to split the tables? In terms of
> searching speed that is.

I'd put it in its own table, probably, unless you're going to use it
frequently.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Everything that happens in the world happens at some place.
		--Jane Jacobs