From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)ztk-rp(dot)eu> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: multiple UNIQUE indices for FK |
Date: | 2016-02-28 02:35:44 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ1rDPjEv2tAs9QRigUpea8J16AacXmNbxtQJR319SqEg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> W dniu 23.02.2016 o 09:39, Rafal Pietrak pisze:
> > Can anybody suggest any other way out of this mass?
>
The only thought that sticks while reading your prose is:
message ----> message-person <---- person
message-person (message_id, person_id, relationship_type[sender, receiver])
Partitioning and partial indexes both have considerable limitations that
you might need to work around. That said normalization exists for a reason
and having multiple "person" columns in a table is a form of duplication
that if left presents just the problems you are seeing.
I suspect your SSN should fit onto the message-person table.
The following doesn't make sense - if the SSN is sender unique then there
is no expectation that a receiver would not receive two messages with the
same SSN from different senders.
ALTER ... msgs_to_me ADD CONSTRINT them_uniq UNIQUE (THEM,SSN);
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aaron Christensen | 2016-02-28 05:19:29 | Re: Designing tables based on user input and defined values |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2016-02-28 00:03:11 | Re: Designing tables based on user input and defined values |