Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9459FA20A
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:15:18 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 49933-05 for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:15:04 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com
 [64.233.162.234])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4947A9FA5D8
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:15:03 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so1245112nzf
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=CNJ7uYKQ/F+JhBiCQjvDhKriXkbUYYPgYyDzkg62d5XKmjEoee2tKA1J33ZV4rvCm0xFlLsNA4Ou0ZKkHmG8KGrQ+d/5r+dp9Km1MFBhfvv7MCzfg7k/R7jTv8CSwi+jF6n5w8+xUWORUU81FBA+QfCefY4QwPBDXRKwkPAsLCQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=MBgJWfORqUKW9/TRyHNArr7FocfJy6UTjJNkW7psml+XvCPK/r3NvcSSKpMTe2EoosSVH/WryPmaocX2dABXIEc/mPsJIvAhQ7XCUwpRTA7NDxcuHqSwyw+nNWnBk0NVWBjRfNORBhTVtc9o8dNSgPhfani5whZDqkjx542C1TI=
Received: by 10.140.186.18 with SMTP id j18mr473297rvf.1188314102276;
	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.40.8 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <99b656cb0708280815w141e715bhed5542317d709a17@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:15:01 +0100
From: "Sebastian Ritter" <ritter.sebastian@gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
Subject: Re: Database normalization
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <20070828145902.GB847@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_29346_16789960.1188314101870"
References: <99b656cb0708210709j5182b73cna63a2d275efa0e84@mail.gmail.com>
	<99b656cb0708280447x4eb7c45axec01c8d0ebc6c82d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070828132604.GB461@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<99b656cb0708280737l3d50585fifcfef7103b26059b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070828145902.GB847@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200708/243
X-Sequence-Number: 29181

------=_Part_29346_16789960.1188314101870
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
>
> 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.)


  The table definition is exactly the same. The only difference is whether
the
  row refers to a client or service.


> 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.


  Why would frequency of use change whether or not I use one or two tables?

Sebastian

------=_Part_29346_16789960.1188314101870
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/28/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andrew Sullivan</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:ajs@crankycanuck.ca">ajs@crankycanuck.ca</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:22PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:<br>&gt; Thanks for the information.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Both tables would be exactly sames apart from the&nbsp;&nbsp;foreign key relation to<br>&gt; clients or services.
<br><br>Hmm.&nbsp;&nbsp;Are the services or clients tables different?&nbsp;&nbsp;A useful rule of<br>thumb is that, to the extent you can sort things into &quot;kinds of<br>data&quot;, then you should have exactly one space for each one.&nbsp;&nbsp;(I hope
<br>that&#39;s clear.)</blockquote><div><br>&nbsp; The table definition is exactly the same. The only difference is whether the <br>&nbsp; row refers to a client or service.<br>&nbsp;</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
&gt; Another factor ive been considering is that one of the fields in this<br>&gt; table(s) definition(s) is free flowing text which could potentially become<br>&gt; very large. Should I take this in to<br>&gt; consideration when deciding whether to split the tables? In terms of
<br>&gt; searching speed that is.<br><br>I&#39;d put it in its own table, probably, unless you&#39;re going to use it<br>frequently.</blockquote><div><br>&nbsp; Why would frequency of use change whether or not I use one or two tables?
<br>&nbsp;</div>Sebastian<br></div><br>

------=_Part_29346_16789960.1188314101870--