From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Walker <furface(at)omnicode(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgresql vs mysql |
Date: | 2007-02-23 18:03:52 |
Message-ID: | 45DF2C88.20001@pinpointresearch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Mark Walker wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're trying to do but, it appears that you database
> design is incorrect. What you need is something like
>
> CREATE TABLE temp_readings
> (
> _date Date,
> temperature double,
> source varchar(20),
> )
>
> No reading, no record. Are you suggesting that you would have a weekly
> set of records for each row?
>
> CREATE TABLE temp_readings
> (
> weekstart date,
> sun double,
> mon double,
> tues, double
> etc
> )
>
> Not such a great way to do it.
Ummm, I'm not trying to make a temperature database. I was responding to
the previous poster with an extremely simple example of usefulness of
the _concept_ of "null". I'm afraid I hadn't considered the possibility
that it would be mistaken as an example of an actual table.
But since you bring it up, simply omitting rows isn't necessarily an
option. A common scenario for weather observation is to take regular
snapshots or a bunch of measurements (air-temperature, humidity,
wind-speed, soil-temperature, leaf-wetness, UV radiation, etc.) which
can easily be represented in a table with a timestamp and a column for
each of the measurements. In a modular weather station where a specific
instrument can be out of service, one or more of those measurements
could be missing (null) for a period of time while the remaining
measurements are still being inserted.
Cheers,
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-23 18:05:37 | Re: Ruby on Rails for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-23 18:03:27 | Re: postgresql vs mysql |