Re: My honours project - databases using dynamically attached entity-properties

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Hammond <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: My honours project - databases using dynamically attached entity-properties
Date: 2007-03-13 02:30:31
Message-ID: 45F60CC7.6040308@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Well the cost depends on where/how complex the extra fields are. If you're just
>> talking about adding columns usercol01..NN with different types and possibly a
>> lookup to a single client_attributes table, it's not difficult.
>
> And then what? dynamically construct all your SQL queries?
> Sure, sounds like a simple solution to me...

No different to dynamically constructing a query for a report. Simpler,
since in my experience most of these user-defined fields are just slots
for extra codes/tags/notes rather than something you'd join on.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-03-13 02:42:04 Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Previous Message Galy Lee 2007-03-13 02:14:22 Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3