Re: Arrays and "goodness" in RDBMSs (was Re: join of

On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 15:36, Andrew L. Gould wrote:
> On Friday 15 August 2003 02:56 pm, elein wrote:
> > In response to both Andrew Gould and Ron Johnson...
> >
> > If arrays are not natural in the organization of
> > your data, don't use them. That is the guideline.
> >
> > If the array defines something specific they are
> > very natural. The confusion could be that arrays
> > are abstract types.
> >
> > Specific implementations which use arrays might
> > be clearer. For example, a definition of a polygon
> > is an array of Points. Points, themselves are an
> > array.
> >
> > (The actual postgreSQL implementation of polygons and points
> > doesn't use the newer cleaner array abstraction, I think.
> > But if I were reimplementing them, I would build on
> > top of the new array capabilities. The point is to show
> > an array structured object which makes sense in context.)
> >
> > Of course you can denomalize via arrays, but it tends
> > to make things harder for you. And I believe the
> > same thing is true for denormalized integer columns.
> >
> > elein
> > =============================================================
> > elein(at)varlena(dot)com www.varlena.com
>
> Thanks, Elein. The polygon example makes it clearer. In the books I have
> here, the examples show how to use arrays but they use data that I would move
> to another table.

This is what makes me nervous about db arrays: the tendency for
denormalization.

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "Man, I'm pretty. Hoo Hah!" |
| Johnny Bravo |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+