From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Database theory (was Re: one-to-one) |
Date: | 2003-08-22 01:21:39 |
Message-ID: | 200308211821.39106.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Ron,
> God bless you, Tiny Tim! I had a similar discussion on [general]
> last week regarding arrays.
<grin> sure. Although arrays can be atomic and thus properly relational; it
just depends on how they are used. Examples:
array of ordered molicules making up a genome: atomic & relational
array of points making up a graph: atomic & relational
array of languages spoken by a salesperson: non-atomic, non-relational
array of products offered by a supplier: non-atomic, non-relational
The real question to ask oneself when using an array data type is: "is the
data I am representing an ordered set which does not have meaning as
individual elements, and does not have the same meaning in a different
order?" If the answer is yes, then please use an array. If the answer is
no, then you should be using a related "child" table instead.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-08-22 01:40:09 | Re: one-to-one |
Previous Message | Michael Grant | 2003-08-22 00:56:29 | Re: one-to-one |