On Apr 24, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Rhys Stewart
> <rhys(dot)stewart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> type). That being said, I would appreciate that any further
>> questions I have
>> not be responded to by single line emails extolling the virtues of
>> designed schemata, normalization or the like.</minor rant precedes>
> Well, I would appreciate getting shorter replies that are to the point
> and don't rely on standing on soap boxes and using exercises in
> polemics to make their point, but I probably won't get that.
> The fact is, if your data is in that format, then the schema is
> working against you, and everything you do is going to be much harder
> than changing your schema to something that makes some more sense.
> Next time I'll hold your hand a bit more, but yesterday I was very far
> out of it (I'm not exactly 100% today either) with a bad head cold.
> Now, should we have more exchanges to determine who can use the most
> flowery of speech or should we talk pgsql and schema changes?
Perhaps his db-fu has yet to bud?
DBA | Emma®
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-04-25 01:03:09|
|Subject: Re: query question really cant give a summary here so read
the body ;-)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-25 00:52:26|
|Subject: Re: query performance |