Re: Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one)
От | Antonios Christofides |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20031104185223.GB5115@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one) (Michael Glaesmann <grzm@myrealbox.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one)
|
Список | pgsql-novice |
Josh Berkus wrote: > My personal limit of denormalization stops at a few NULL columns and using > cache tables to hold copies of views which are too slow. Here's a trivial design problem involving NULLs (the only conscious violation of Pascal I did in that database): I have a "gaddresses" table that holds addresses of geographical points (such as your house): id (PK and FK: specifies the geographical point of which we are giving the address) country (FK) state (FK, nullable: specifies the state of the US if the country is US) address (the rest of the address) Pascal says: use NULL only for missing, not for inapplicable. Here the state is inapplicable unless the country is US. What should I do instead? Create another table, "gstates"? id (PK and FK to gaddresses) state (FK) Is this overkill?
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: