Re: Any reason not to use inheritance?

From: jao(at)geophile(dot)com
To: "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Any reason not to use inheritance?
Date: 2004-09-20 22:16:19
Message-ID: 1095718579.414f56b376003@geophile.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Quoting "Thomas F.O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>:

> Just beware that inheritance is not a complete methodology in postgres.
> The implementation has limitations. For instance, indexes in parent
> tables will not be inherited by children.
>
> I've yet to encounter a scenario that actually required inheritance.
> I've used it a few times, but when I have, the end result always
> required a bit more work because of the incomplete aspects of the
> postgres implementation (namely constraints and indexes).

Could you expand on this?

All indexes and constraints would be declared on the child tables.
Nearly all table reference would be to the child tables. (So why use
inheritance at all? If for no other reason, all the common
columns would be declared in one place.)

Jack Orenstein

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bill Jacaruso 2004-09-20 22:26:48 Austin User Group
Previous Message Christopher Browne 2004-09-20 21:45:43 Re: using database for queuing operations?