From: | Alexandre Leclerc <alexandre(dot)leclerc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
Cc: | PERFORM <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Flattening a kind of 'dynamic' table |
Date: | 2005-01-27 22:07:19 |
Message-ID: | 1dc7f0e3050127140746eeb3e7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:05:09 -0500, Merlin Moncure
<merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> wrote:
> Alexandre wrote:
> > like I'm doing right now, that "de-normalizing" in an array is the way
> > to go.
>
> Only sometimes. Looping application code is another tactic. There may
> be other things to do as well that don't involve arrays or application
> code. Consider arrays a (very postgresql specific) tool in your
> expanding toolchest.
I take good notes of that. All this opened to me other ways for
solutions, so I'm glad of that. I'll take more time to think about all
that.
> De-normalization is a loaded term because we are only presenting queried
> data in an alternate format (normalization normally applying to data
> structured within the database). There are many people on this list who
> will tell you not to de-normalize anything, ever (and most of the time,
> you shouldn't!).
Thank you for all you help and time for this.
Best regards.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-28 00:14:46 | Re: [SQL] OFFSET impact on Performance??? |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2005-01-27 21:36:59 | Re: Swapping on Solaris |