Re: Duplicates Processing

From: Gary Chambers <gwchamb(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Duplicates Processing
Date: 2010-10-08 20:42:29
Message-ID: AANLkTimRfzKH0DhyuMLpeU3g5GnCU6CuzYdxcph5HjqL@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Rob,

> Perhaps a trade off between nullable fields and redundant types.  If
> your original table simply had a nullable column called
> isReplacementFor, into which you place in the subsequent rows the id of
> the first instance found.

Am I misunderstanding you when you're suggesting a table like:

part_number INTEGER
is_replacement_for INTEGER references part_number
value INTEGER
wattage FLOAT8
...

-- Gary Chambers

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rob Sargent 2010-10-08 21:34:28 Re: Duplicates Processing
Previous Message Rob Sargent 2010-10-08 20:07:07 Re: Duplicates Processing