| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Eric E <whalesuit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Partial foreign keys, check constraints and inheritance |
| Date: | 2005-11-22 18:38:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20051122183825.GR19279@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:33PM -0500, Eric E wrote:
> >maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null
> >values.
> >
> >if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
> >check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
>
>
> I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls for
> every one full field.... maybe it's not as bad a way of doing it as I
> thought.
What's wrong with multiple NULL fields? It's probably the cleanest,
fastest way to do this...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Veatch | 2005-11-22 18:49:20 | Re: Best way to represent values. |
| Previous Message | Bob Pawley | 2005-11-22 18:19:34 | Re: Group By? |