Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?

From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?
Date: 2009-04-08 22:22:18
Message-ID: grj82q$u4s$1@ger.gmane.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Robert Treat wrote on 08.04.2009 23:06:

> http://www.databasedesign-resource.com/null-values-in-a-database.html

That is a very - hmm - strange article.

One of the proofs that nulls are bad is that "SELECT * FROM theTable" (theTable
being empty) returns nothing, whereas SELECT COUNT(*) FROM theTable returns a
single row with 0 (zero):

"This last example is even worse: The SELECT * returns 'No rows selected', but
the SELECT COUNT(*) returns ONE row with the value 0!"

I stopped reading the article at that point...

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2009-04-08 22:25:25 Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?
Previous Message Sam Mason 2009-04-08 22:07:28 Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?