| From: | neko(at)kredit(dot)sth(dot)szif(dot)hu |
|---|---|
| To: | "John M(dot) Flinchbaugh" <glynis(at)butterfly(dot)hjsoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] arrays |
| Date: | 1999-12-04 15:05:26 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9912041551160.24572-100000@kredit.sth.szif.hu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, John M. Flinchbaugh wrote:
> > Trying to fully normalise attributes like these leads to nonsensical and
> > unusable database designs.
> ``slots''. say you give each publication an array to hold 3
> authors. what happens when that 4th author comes along, then a
> fifth? you always have a +1 problem. your database design will stand the
> test of time better if you keep a good design.
>
> one may say, ``just put 100 slots for authors''. then you are just
Hmm... But you can create an array field with variable size. So, it's not
waste the space, and have only one limit: 8k record size.
So, feel free to use arrays.
best regards:
--
nek;(
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-12-04 17:41:32 | Re: [SQL] arrays |
| Previous Message | John M. Flinchbaugh | 1999-12-04 14:02:13 | Re: [SQL] arrays |