From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020716114553.GB29323@wolff.to>
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?
-Josh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, bruno@wolff.to, sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
In-Reply-To: <web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox