Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables), any alternative?

From: Jose Gonzalez Gomez <jgonzalez(dot)openinput(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables), any alternative?
Date: 2005-06-19 16:16:34
Message-ID: 306bf0105061909167c5beebe@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 6/17/05, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 14:35:01 +0200,
> Jose Gonzalez Gomez <jgonzalez(dot)openinput(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > The problem comes when you have questions that may be not applicable
> > (8), or optional (doesn't know, doesn't answer) (9). The easy solution
> > would be to have four tables:
> >
> > yes_no
> > yes_no_not_applicable
> > yes_no_optional
> > yes_no_not_applicable_optional
>
> How about having a table with the valid codes for each question?
> This should be relatively easy maintain and you can easily set up
> a foreign key reference to this table to enforce integrity.
>
There would be no problem in doing so with such an easy case, but
think about having a table with cities (hundred, thousands?) and then
have four copies for each of the above posibilities with its related
maintenance nightmare.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zlatko Matić 2005-06-19 19:56:04 user/groups query ?
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2005-06-19 08:48:12 Re: [SQL] Set Membership operator -- test group membership