On 27/09/08 at 01:49 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 01:10:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > (2) the way we deal with bugs affecting two (or more) packages. > > That's a tricky problem. On one hand, the correct way to solve that > > would be to have a separate "affected_packages" table, with (id, > > package) columns, and also an "affected_sources" table. > > > > On the other hand, that's makes all queries more complex, because you > > have to join this additional table (and it's not going to be a small > > table). Currently, there are only 78 unarchived bugs (out of 69982) > > which are affected to 2 or more packages (select count(*) from bugs > > where package like '%,%'). > > > > One possibility would be to keep the package/source columns in bugs, but > > add tables with (id, package) and (id, source). That way, people not > > interested in this case can join the additional table, while others can > > just ignore it. It would only increase a bit the time needed to import > > the bugs (about half an hour currently, only I/O bound). > > I was thinking about adding the bug two times in the bugs table.
That's quite dirty, as it would cause the other information to be duplicated as well (e.g a "bugs per submitter" query). Also, it would require changing the primary key for the bugs table (it's the id, currently). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
