| From: | Frederic Jolliton <fred-pg(at)jolliton(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Building dynamic contents from database |
| Date: | 2003-12-29 20:23:19 |
| Message-ID: | 863cb31ih4.fsf@mau.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com> writes:
>> name | state | from_date | to_date
>> ------------------------------------
>> foo | state2 | <date> | <date>
>> foo | state1 | <date> | <date>
>> bar | state4 | <date> | <date>
>> ...
>> foo | state3 | <date> | <date>
>
> I would consider using only 1 table, where a NULL to_date indicates the
> current state, and you have a compound index on (name, to_date) to support
> querying for current state. Perhaps you could use a partial index as well to
> speed up those queries, but I haven't yet explored that feature of
> PostgreSQL.
Well.. There is already several indexes (choosed accordingly to
performance test). And, also, table current contains some fields not
found in history, so only 1 table for both type of information is not
ideal.
--
Frédéric Jolliton
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Keith C. Perry | 2003-12-29 20:24:48 | Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-12-29 20:21:07 | Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? |