Re: Reference Type in PostgreSQL

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Elena <elena(dot)planas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reference Type in PostgreSQL
Date: 2007-03-20 17:53:14
Message-ID: 1174413194.23455.527.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 10:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Elena <elena(dot)planas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hello all, I'm new in PostgreSQL...
> >
> > I would want to know like PostgreSQL manages the type reference that defines
> > the standard SQL:1999. I want to define the type of attribute like a
> > reference at other type.
> >
> > For example, in Oracle8i the definition is:
> >
> > -- Type Department
> > CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE Department_type AS OBJECT (
> > code NUMBER(5),
> > name VARCHAR(40)
> > );
> >
> > -- Type Employee
> > CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE Employee_type AS OBJECT (
> > code NUMBER(5),
> > name VARCHAR2(40),
> > department REF Department_type -- Reference to Department object type
> > );
> >
>
> how is this different from simply nesting the types?
>

Nesting the types would prevent other tuples from containing a reference
to the same tuple of Department_type.

I don't think a reference is the best thing to do here. A foreign key
fits the relational model much better, and really has no disadvantage
that I can see.

What can a reference do that a foreign key can't?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Benjamin Arai 2007-03-20 17:59:03 SoC Ideas for people looking for projects
Previous Message John D. Burger 2007-03-20 17:44:43 Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY and python