> On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 09:27:21AM +0700, Vadim B. Mikheev wrote:
> > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Ralf Mattes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, i agree. Mike's implementation is the way to go in a traditional
> > > > realtional db (BTW, a question about oids: lurking on this list
> > > > i overheard the idea of dropping oids. This would break a lot
> > > > of my code! What's the last word on this ?).
> > >
> > > The last we discussed in pgsql-hackers was that OIDs would not be
> > > dropped...
> >
> > ..but would be optional.
> >
> > Vadim
> >
>
> OIDs are a bastardization of the relational model. If you have to keep
> them, then do so, but their use should be SEVERELY discouraged.
>
> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
So what if they are a "bastardization of the relational model". If they
are the best way of solving a problem, then they should be used. Most people
who use RDBMSs for real work find that the purity of the relational model
has to be compromised for efficiency (e.g. creating combined columns, so
your queries don't need dozens of ANDs). Having something like OIDs to
define relationships between rows in a table can be the only way to solve
certain problems.
Andrew
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL: http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel: (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890 (Home) +44(0)1372 275775