From: | Seb <spluque(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: enum data type vs table |
Date: | 2011-05-25 23:08:10 |
Message-ID: | 871uzme5ut.fsf@kolob.subpolar.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 25 May 2011 17:23:26 -0500,
Peter Koczan <pjkoczan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Seb <spluque(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Are there any guidelines for deciding whether to 1) create an enum
>> data type or 2) create a table with the set of values and then have
>> foreign keys referencing this table? Some fields in a database take
>> a small number of values, and I'm not sure which of these routes to
>> take. The enum data type seems like a clean way to handle this
>> without creating a constellation of tables for all these values, but
>> if one wants to add a new label to the enum or make changes to it at
>> some point, then the tables using it have to be recreated, so it's
>> quite rigid. Have I got this right? Thanks.
> I think your choice depends on a few things:
> 1 - How do you want to interact with the tables? What I mean is, are
> you planning on querying, inserting, or updating data to those tables
> via text or will you need to join to your reference table? If you
> don't want to join, you'll either need to use enum types, use views
> (which can be a pain if you want to update a view), or
> duplicate/reference the text directly (which is slow and a bad idea
> for several reasons).
> 2 - How much can you tolerate downtime or a busy database? Changing
> types is a single transaction and requires an exclusive lock. On small
> tables this is negligible, but on big tables it can require downtime.
> 3 - How often do you really expect changes to the enum type? If adding
> a new value to an enum type is truly a rare event, it's . If it's
> frequent or regular, you should probably have a table.
> I've used both of these approaches and I've found enum types to be
> well worth any trouble to drop/recreate types. The changes I've made
> have been rare, and I've been able to schedule downtime pretty easily,
> so it made the most sense for me.
> Also, Postgres 9.1 allows adding values to enum types, so you could
> always use that when it is finally released.
These are great guidelines, thanks.
--
Seb
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2011-05-26 18:07:56 | Re: column type for pdf file |
Previous Message | Peter Koczan | 2011-05-25 22:23:26 | Re: enum data type vs table |