Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

From: Jeff Davis <list-pgsql-hackers(at)empires(dot)org>
To: "Sander Steffann" <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?
Date: 2002-08-02 17:53:30
Message-ID: 200208021053.30200.list-pgsql-hackers@empires.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Well, if you also have soundcard_products, in your example you could have a
> product which is both a networkcard AND a soundcard. No way to restrict
> that a product can be only one 'subclass' at a time... If you can make that
> restriction using the relational model, you can do the same as with
> subclasses. But afaict that is very hard to do...
>

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it looks to me as if the relational model still
holds quite cleanly.

CREATE TABLE products (
id int4 primary key,
name text );

CREATE TABLE soundcard (
prod_id int4 REFERENCES products(id),
some_feature BOOLEAN);

CREATE VIEW soundcard_v AS SELECT * FROM products, soundcard WHERE products.id
= soundcard.prod_id;

CREATE TABLE networkcard (
prod_id int4 REFERENCES products(id),
hundred_base_t BOOLEAN);

CREATE VIEW networkcard_v AS SELECT * FROM products, networkcard WHERE
products.id = networkcard.prod_id;

Now, to get the networkcard/soundcard combos, you just need to do:
SELECT * FROM soundcard_v, networkcard_v WHERE soundcard_v.id =
networkcard_v.id;

For what it's worth, I didn't make any mistakes writing it up the first time.
It most certainly "fits my brain" well and seems simple and clean.

I am not advocating that we remove inheritance, but I (so far) agree with Curt
that it's pretty useless.

Regards,
Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeroen T. Vermeulen 2002-08-02 17:53:48 Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items )
Previous Message Richard Tucker 2002-08-02 17:50:19 Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations