Re: table count limitation

From: andrew(at)ugh(dot)net(dot)au
To: Miles Thompson <milesthompson(at)sprint(dot)ca>
Cc: Marcin Inkielman <marn(at)wsisiz(dot)edu(dot)pl>, postgreSQL general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: table count limitation
Date: 2000-08-27 23:25:11
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0008280919240.65040-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Miles Thompson wrote:

> Other columns could simply be labelled "descrip1", "descrip2", "descrip3", as
> many as you need, for the different attributes of each item. So "descrip1" may

Now someone once said to me "If you find your labeling your fields x1, x2,
x3... then your design is wrong." His next step would be to ask for your
ER diagram :-)

Have you tried inheritance? i.e you will have a product, inheriting from
that you will have computers, boats, cars etc. Perhaps from boats you
could have sail boats, motor boats etc as you store different attributes.

As postgresql is an OORBMS it should be able to handle it without any
nasty squash into the relational model tricks.

I've never used an OO database in production mind you...perhaps there is
some catch I'm not aware of.

Andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Miles Thompson 2000-08-28 00:04:33 Re: table count limitation
Previous Message Chris 2000-08-27 22:53:09 Re: [HACKERS] Pure ODBMS (fwd)