| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Adrian Klaver" <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Steve Crawford" <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>,"Gavan Schneider" <pg-gts(at)snkmail(dot)com>,pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Yet Another Timestamp Question: Time Defaults |
| Date: | 2013-01-22 02:42:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20130122024223.120620@gmx.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> If I was following Gavan correctly, he wanted to have a single
> timestamp field to store calender dates and datetimes. In other
> words to cover both date only situations like birthdays and
> datetime situations like an appointment.
If that is actually true, it sounds like some reading on the
benefits of normalizing to 3rd normal form is in order. What you
describe is a violation of first normal form. Now, I recognize that
most databases of any complexity need to denormalize to one degree
or another for performance reasons; but I don't see the benefit of
this particular type of denormalization.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mihai Popa | 2013-01-22 02:49:46 | |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-22 02:21:50 | Re: Running update in chunks? |