| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
| Cc: | "Pollard, Mike" <mpollard(at)cincom(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
| Date: | 2006-01-24 10:04:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20060124100445.GC7766@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:53:11 -0500,
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
>
> Yes. Representation of the DNA is probably best. But - that's a lot of
> data to use as a key in multiple tables. :-)
On a simple level, this would be a problem for twins.
There are other complications as well. People are going to have slightly
different DNA in different cells due to mutations. Though you could probably
do some averaging over a number of cells to get a single value.
For people that have had transplants, you could probably define something
for doing the sample for original material.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gustavo Tonini | 2006-01-24 10:17:22 | Re: [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-01-24 09:57:44 | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |