| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | George Essig <george_essig(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Eric D(dot) Nielsen" <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Has anyone tried Date/Darwen/Lorentzos's model for temporal data? |
| Date: | 2004-10-16 04:13:08 |
| Message-ID: | AF73B16C-1F29-11D9-93C0-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
George,
I'd like to thank you for the link as well. It looks really interesting
after reading the front matter.
On Oct 16, 2004, at 10:07 AM, George Essig wrote:
>
> --- "Eric D. Nielsen" <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the Snodgrass reference, it is rather similar and pre-dates
>> the book I was looking at. (Same notion of valid/transaction times,
>> but Date's non-SQL approach) From a quick skim it doesn't address the
>> distinction Date et al draw between historic and current temporal
>> data;
>> however it looks very useful for mapping their concepts to SQL.
>>
>> Eric
>
> You might want to look at Section 7.5 Temporal Partitioning. One
> table is used to store current
> data and another table is used to store historic data.
I am very interested in hearing what you've done in PostgreSQL related
to this. I probably should read through the text (isn't PDF wonderful?)
before you go into detail, but a brief overview would be great.
Thanks again for your time.
Cheers,
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2004-10-16 05:23:09 | Avoiding sequential scans with OR join condition |
| Previous Message | Josh Close | 2004-10-16 03:56:06 | plpgsql loop not returning value |