Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: cost of empty fields

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cost of empty fields
Date: 2005-04-21 04:09:57
Message-ID: 20050421040957.GZ58835@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:19:02AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Jim C. Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> > If you setup rules on the view and just have the application select,
> > insert, update, and delete from the view instead of the raw tables you
> > won't need to change your application at all. Though you do need to be
> > aware that you can't easily enforce uniqueness across multiple tables.
> hmm. that doesnt sound stable enough for me. 
> this table is really critical and there's a lot of money in game
> (realtime currency trading ...)

Note I didn't say you couldn't do it, I just said it wasn't easy. Easy
as in adding a normal unique constraint. In this case, you need to add
triggers to the tables to check for uniqueness. It's absolutely stable,
it's just not as nice as it could be.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel(at)decibel(dot)org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Wim BertelsDate: 2005-04-21 11:03:44
Subject: Re: brute force attacking the password
Previous:From: Enrico WeigeltDate: 2005-04-21 02:19:02
Subject: Re: cost of empty fields

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group