| From: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christoph Pieper <christoph(at)fecra(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Schema design: user account deletion vs. keeping family tree data |
| Date: | 2025-11-26 23:26:48 |
| Message-ID: | A7C6E015-5E15-45BC-8AEB-9A55FD9B2DF5@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:25 PM, Christoph Pieper <christoph(at)fecra(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Thanks everybody!
>
> And what do you think about Option A?
> Especially the pedigree node approach beside the animal node?
I have to ask if you are thinking about genetics or genealogy. Your opening statement certainly implies the former. That you will have many many users tends towards the latter.
With respect to genetics I repeat myself (and another responder): keep the triplet table simple as can be with ego-mother-father. All else is fluff. ;) You will have to lose/break pedigrees in the event of a deletion/retraction. Keep in mind that there is a school of thought that claims pedigrees are in fact identifying information.
For genealogy you might work off a two table setup: person and relationship. The former defines an id and the latter relates two persons with a specific type of relationship including half sibs, step sibs, uncle/aunt - whatever your users wish to tell you
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Christoph Pieper | 2025-11-26 22:24:19 | Re: Schema design: user account deletion vs. keeping family tree data |