| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexing UNIONs |
| Date: | 2002-07-16 16:36:31 |
| Message-ID: | web-1578828@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Bruno,
> It wouldn't have to be a dummy table. You could have both sets of
> data
> in the same table.
Per my original e-mail, this is not an option.
Basically, the two tables have nothing in commmon *except* that events
can be scheduled against either table. Otherwise, the two tables have
vastly different data, which comes from completely different sources,
and is related to a totally different set of dependant tables.
So, no go.
I run into this sort of thing a lot. Is it just the way I design
databases, or is there a need for a more sophisticated model of
relationality for SQL03?
-Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2002-07-16 17:18:36 | A SQL Training |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-16 16:31:49 | Re: [SQL] line datatype |