Re: Q: data modeling with inheritance
| От | Reece Hart |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Q: data modeling with inheritance |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1246667840.4121.4.camel@snafu обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Q: data modeling with inheritance (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Q: data modeling with inheritance
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:29 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
Thanks,
Reece
I'm missing what you're doing here that foreign keys don't cover.No DDL yet... I'm just in the thinking stages. FKs technically would do it, but would become unwieldy. The intention was to have subclasses of each of the variant, association, and phenotype tables. That leads to the polymorphic key problem.
Could you send along your DDL?
Just generally, I've only found table inheritance useful forThat answers the question -- I do want polymorphic foreign keys. Dang.
partitioning. "Polymorphic" foreign key constraints can be handled
other ways such as the one sketched out below.
Thanks,
Reece
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: