Re: sql (Stored procedure) design question

So is it still advisable not to store it in a string format like
'jarraa, mooreg3, flowerpower' [read my comments below please]

awaiting some feedback.
-assad


On 1/12/06, Assad Jarrahian <jarraa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alban and Tino,
>  More explanations lie below.
> A document contains to field, from field, subject, message, etc
>
> > >>documentid,username,groupname  (as real fields)
> > No, it would look like this:
> >
> > (1,'jarraa','postgres','keith') to match your original schema.
>
> I dont understand it. what type would it be (the second column) and
> what constraint would it have.
> And how can I get away with storing just one table. According to my
> thougths, I seem to need two tables for certain (could be wrong).
> Schemas as follows:
>
> (documentID, From,subject, message ....)
> (doucumentID, OneOfTheManyToFieldReciepient)
>
>
> Keep in mind that I dont know how many entries are in the To field
> (its just one string coming from the client!). IT would be helpful to
> think of this as just like an email system (but a closed one, as in
> you have everybody's username in the db). Furhtermore think of social
> networks (thats what I am building).
>
>
> >
> > But it really depends on what you want to solve here.
> > What data exactly do you have and how do you want to look
> > for data? I mean, what are the keys?
> >
> I rarely analyze data I recieve (besides for constraints). We have
> lucene (java search engine) indexing the db contents and almost all
> *SELECT*  queries goto that first and then I get an ID list (since
> lucene does not store the data) and I retrieve the information in the
> format as the same way it came in.
> Lucene, being in java can split up tokens fairly easily and quickly
> and our Lucene engineer likes it in the format of string '  name,
> name, name'
>
> > Do you have a specific "group" and want to see all "docs" for
> > that group? And then you have a user and want to see all "docs"
> > for this user? Or is it the other way round and you have
> > a "doc" and want to see responsible users and/or groups?
> see above explanation of lucene.
>
> > And are groups independend from users? Or are users always
> > in one or many groups? ...
>
> A user can belong to many groups. A user can write a "document" To
> users, and To groups. The constrainfo user being the user is in the db
> and for groups, he/she has to be a member of it.
>
> Users Schema
> (username, userInfo)
> Group Schema (2 tables)
> (groupID, groupname, groupInfo)
> (groupID, oneOfTheManyGroupMembers)
>
> Hope this helps and that I am making sense now. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> -assad
>
> On 1/12/06, Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de> wrote:
> > Assad Jarrahian schrieb:
> > > Tino, thanks for your response
> > >
> > >>Your schema could rather look like this:
> > >>
> > >>documentid,username,groupname  (as real fields)
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, so a typical document can be addressed to any number of users/groups.  so
> > > according to an example with the to field = 'jarraa, postgres, keith',
> > > some rows could be like
> > >
> > > (1, jarraa, )
> > > (1,  , postgres)
> > > (1, keith, )
> > >
> >
> > No, it would look like this:
> >
> > (1,'jarraa','postgres','keith') to match your original schema.
> >
> > But it really depends on what you want to solve here.
> > What data exactly do you have and how do you want to look
> > for data? I mean, what are the keys?
> >
> > Do you have a specific "group" and want to see all "docs" for
> > that group? And then you have a user and want to see all "docs"
> > for this user? Or is it the other way round and you have
> > a "doc" and want to see responsible users and/or groups?
> > And are groups independend from users? Or are users always
> > in one or many groups? ...
> >
> >
>