From: | Antonios Christofides <anthony(at)itia(dot)ntua(dot)gr> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one) |
Date: | 2003-11-04 18:52:23 |
Message-ID: | 20031104185223.GB5115@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-11-04 21:46:25 | Re: Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one) |
Previous Message | Antonios Christofides | 2003-11-04 18:51:25 | Surrogate vs natural keys (Was: Almost relational PostgreSQL (was: one-to-one)) |