From: | "James Orr" <james(at)lrgmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Gonzo Rock" <GonzoRock(at)Excite(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Database Design Question |
Date: | 2001-07-27 20:51:00 |
Message-ID: | 00ce01c116dd$d83f5fe0$1600000a@lrg.office |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-sql |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gonzo Rock" <GonzoRock(at)Excite(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: [SQL] Database Design Question
> OK... Fair Enough... Good Points indeed y'all.
>
> Well... What about the problem of users trying to Query the Database??
>
> You know... like when using Crystal Reports or something?.
>
> SELECT * from HistoryTable
> WHERE PartID = SomeInteger
>
> vs
>
> SELECT * from HistoryTable
> WHERE PartNum = 12345636 AND PartRev = C
>
> How are they supposed to know What the PartID is ??
>
> Anyway, that I why I was considering changing... current users always have
trouble peering into the database... They don't quite get it.
Search conditions don't HAVE to be indexes. And you can have more than one
index. So you could have your primary index on PartID, which would be used
by your applications and another index on PartNum and PartRev if those are
frequently searched fields for crystal reports etc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Flemming Froekjaer | 2001-07-27 22:49:36 | Problems linking with libpq |
Previous Message | omid omoomi | 2001-07-27 20:40:48 | Re: Database Design Question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jimmie Fulton | 2001-07-27 22:29:27 | RE: Database Design Question |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2001-07-27 20:39:31 | Re: RE: [SQL] Database Design Question |