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

Re: table inheritance - useful?

From: jon(at)proprac(dot)com
To: "Matthew Weigel" <unique(at)idempot(dot)net>, austinpug-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org, austinpug(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: table inheritance - useful?
Date: 2009-10-08 06:40:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: austinpug
Far as I can tell the only real world app has been paritioning...
------Original Message------
From: Matthew Weigel
Sender: austinpug-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
To: austinpug(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [austinpug] table inheritance - useful?
Sent: Oct 8, 2009 12:59 AM

One of the things I've heard touted for a long time about Postgres - but never
used - is table inheritance.  As far as I can tell, it's the only feature that
leads to Postgres being considered an "object-relational" database system.

I've done some Googling on the matter and it *seems* like virtually no one is
using it or working on it; an approach that was interesting and had potential,
but perhaps has fallen by the wayside now.

Does anyone actually use it?  Has it been useful for more naturally doing
object/relational mapping?  I've read the documentation and caveats on what it
does and does not provide (indexes applying to only single tables is probably
the most worrisome), but I'm curious about real-world experiences with it.
 Matthew Weigel
 unique & idempot . ent

Sent via austinpug mailing list (austinpug(at)postgresql(dot)org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

austinpug by date

Next:From: Decibel!Date: 2009-10-09 16:53:03
Subject: Re: table inheritance - useful?
Previous:From: Matthew WeigelDate: 2009-10-08 05:59:54
Subject: table inheritance - useful?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group