| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |