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

Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>,PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL
Date: 2005-07-27 12:16:31
Message-ID: 20050727121631.GA32261@wolff.to (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 17:14:57 -0500,
  "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> 
> As for varchar, they're orthogonal issues. If you have a large table
> with a limited number of text values that could change over time you'd
> want to store an integer ID in the large table, but make it easy to deal
> with new values being added.

Maybe. Using the integer ID saves space, but requires a join on lookups that
compare to the keywords. So there is a time space trade off doing this.
Either way maintenance is similar. Domains are another option, but updating
the keyword list requires DDL and you don't have the cascade options
available directly for renaming or removing previously valid keywords.
Though for short lists of keywords that change infrequently, domains may
be the best performing option.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2005-07-27 12:21:57
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2005-07-27 11:03:45
Subject: Re: regression failure on latest CVS

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2005-07-27 12:21:57
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Chris TraversDate: 2005-07-27 05:39:37
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL

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