From: | Ron Peterson <rpeterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "T(dot)J(dot)Farrell" <T(dot)J(dot)Farrell(at)wanadoo(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql and programming |
Date: | 2000-06-14 13:47:32 |
Message-ID: | 39478CF4.EFD9711D@yellowbank.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
If you're only consideration is raw performance of lookups on text
fields, I suppose there might be some measureable performance advantage
in putting everything in one table, but I doubt you'd really notice the
difference. If you *did* do this, what is the significance of the
authorID field?
Normalize, normalize, normalize. Use a relational database for it's
strengths. Don't duplicate data.
"T.J.Farrell" wrote:
>
> In terms of performance also, is it preferable to desing a database as:
>
> create table articles (
> refarticle text,
> title text,
> authorID integer,
> authorname text,
> editorID integer,
> editorname text,
> ... etc...
> );
>
> OR :
>
> create articles(
> refarticle text,
> title text,
> authorID integer,
> editorID integer,
> ... etc...
> );
>
> create table authors(
> authorname text,
> authorID integer,
> ...etc...
> );
>
> create table editors(
> editorID integer,
> editorname text,
> ...etc...
> );
________________________
Ron Peterson
rpeterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peterson | 2000-06-14 13:59:44 | Re: large text fields? |
Previous Message | Ron Peterson | 2000-06-14 13:37:02 | Re: Timestamp and compatiblity with MySQL |