| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Sean Utt <sean(at)strateja(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Hammond <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Edward(dot)Stanley(at)mcs(dot)vuw(dot)ac(dot)nz |
| Subject: | Re: My honours project - databases using dynamically attached entity-properties |
| Date: | 2007-03-13 14:28:44 |
| Message-ID: | 45F6B51C.8020609@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter wrote:
>> I think the main discussion has been around:
>> 1. Whether Edward's final-year project is basically EAV (in which case
>> he'll probably need to work hard to get good marks).
>>
>
> As Josh mentioned, I'm on of the people who says EAV is never
> justified. We do have a way of expressing wide ranges of constraints
> not known in advance: it's called SQL, and people need to do some
> design using it, however much they may fear that they've left
> something out somehow. :)
>
>
ISTM that the biggest problem with EAV is that is is far too seductive,
and allows for lazy design (or lack of design). There might be odd cases
(pace David) that require it, but I strongly suspect in most cases it is
not necessary.
Perhaps we need some sort of discriminant record type ;-)
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-03-13 14:36:56 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2007-03-13 14:24:01 | Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code? |