Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E37F4759A4
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:36:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account <josh@agliodbs.com>)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.5.9)
	with HTTP id 1578828; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:31 -0700
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Indexing UNIONs
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.5.9
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020716114553.GB29323@wolff.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200207/240
X-Sequence-Number: 8618

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