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

Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column

From: "paul butler" <paul(at)entropia(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column
Date: 2002-10-17 12:28:55
Message-ID: T5dfef1d908ac1785b30c3@pcow057o.blueyonder.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
Purely for discussion:


On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:23, Jules Alberts wrote:
> 
> I have considered this. As a matter of fact, that is the way it is in 
> our current db but I'm not really happy with it. Theoretically 
CODE 
> should never change and is therefore safe to use as primary key. 
But 
> having an "extra" serial primary key will make the db more 
flexible 
> regarding to unforeseen complications. 

Could you not make NAME not unique? Then you could have a 
new code for the same name, not affecting previous records. If a 
code changes, then its a new code, or the old code with a new 
name

>Yeah, this happens.  Later people want to expire particular codes, 
>or
>change their meaning, but not for the existing records that refer to
>them...

If all attributes are 'unique' I don't see how you could change a 
codes 'meaning' without (effectively not mechanically) cascading 
these changes to existing records


>From my own experience, I would also say that there is value in 
>being
>able to sequence the codes in a non-alphabetic order.  I add 
>another
"seq" column to such tables, to allow their ordering to be arbitrarily
adjusted as well.

Just wondering aloud

Cheers

Paul Butler


Responses

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: paul butlerDate: 2002-10-17 12:42:52
Subject: where clauses with and
Previous:From: Andrew McMillanDate: 2002-10-17 11:03:31
Subject: Re: Trying to transform results of dow

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