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

Re: query question really cant give a summary here so read the body ;-)

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Rhys Stewart" <rhys(dot)stewart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: query question really cant give a summary here so read the body ;-)
Date: 2008-04-24 22:43:11
Message-ID: dcc563d10804241543m211fcb77r8a0410785e0e964a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
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 properly
> 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?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Brian CoxDate: 2008-04-24 23:59:24
Subject: Re: query performance
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-24 22:10:44
Subject: Re: Confused by result of pg_catalog.format_type()

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