From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | Filipe Knoedt <filipe(at)brasilenergia(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | PG LIST <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: N-to-N implementation |
Date: | 2005-07-21 16:02:10 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.63.0507212001470.10181@ra.sai.msu.su |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Filipe Knoedt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to set up a discussion (if necessary) about two different ways to implement N-to-N relationships: using a N-to-N intermediary table or, suppose an A and B tables situation, creating the primary key of the table B with the A.id plus a sequencer.
>
> I'm thinking on going the second way, but decided to ask the list if anybody sees any potencial problem in it, like for performance or anything.
we use contrib/intarray to avoid joining
>
> Filipe Knoedt
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-07-21 16:11:09 | Re: PGSQL 7.4.8 : idle in transaction problem |
Previous Message | Filipe Knoedt | 2005-07-21 15:38:18 | N-to-N implementation |