From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Brian Ghidinelli <brian(at)pukkasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using null date fields to indicate active/expired records |
Date: | 2004-08-06 17:27:17 |
Message-ID: | 200408061027.17012.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | sfpug |
Brian,
> Approximately 14 billion. Ok, I'm kidding, but can anyone answer my
> question? Although this might be micro-optimization, does it hurt to
> know more about date performance?
No, there's nothing wrong with knowing. What David and I are asserting is
that your decision should be determined by having a correct data model, and
not by counting bits, unless you're in a really extreme situation where you
have already tested and know you have a problem.
Josh's Database Rules #3: the performance loss for slow queries is generally
exceeded by the downtime caused by a bad data model by a factor of 100 or
more.
> There are two parts to my question; one, which is faster, and two, does
> anyone have any advice about using either a single boolean flag or using
> a 1-n type date?
Which is faster depends on your query structure and the distribution of your
data; that's the other reason not to make decisions on this basis now. If
you want a serious answer on this, please post your current table structure
and an explanation of what kind of data is kept in the various fields and how
you query it.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2004-08-06 19:08:53 | Re: Using null date fields to indicate active/expired records |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-06 16:15:47 | Re: Using null date fields to indicate active/expired records |