From: | "Sebastian Ritter" <ritter(dot)sebastian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Database normalization |
Date: | 2007-08-28 15:15:01 |
Message-ID: | 99b656cb0708280815w141e715bhed5542317d709a17@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Hi,
On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:22PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
> > Thanks for the information.
> >
> > Both tables would be exactly sames apart from the foreign key relation
> to
> > clients or services.
>
> Hmm. Are the services or clients tables different? A useful rule of
> thumb is that, to the extent you can sort things into "kinds of
> data", then you should have exactly one space for each one. (I hope
> that's clear.)
The table definition is exactly the same. The only difference is whether
the
row refers to a client or service.
> Another factor ive been considering is that one of the fields in this
> > table(s) definition(s) is free flowing text which could potentially
> become
> > very large. Should I take this in to
> > consideration when deciding whether to split the tables? In terms of
> > searching speed that is.
>
> I'd put it in its own table, probably, unless you're going to use it
> frequently.
Why would frequency of use change whether or not I use one or two tables?
Sebastian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-08-28 15:19:08 | Re: Database normalization |
Previous Message | Sebastian Ritter | 2007-08-28 15:10:37 | Re: Database normalization |