On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:27:29 -0700
Robert DiFalco <robert.difa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have several related tables that represent a call state.
>
> And so on for calls_connected, calls_completed, call_errors, etc.
>
> So for my question -- is the choice between these a personal preference
> sort of thing or is there a right or wrong approach? Am I missing another
> approach that would be better?
Hi Robert,
I guess a call state is subject to change, in which case you would have to
shuffle records between tables when that happens?
ISTM you should consider using only a 'calls' table, and add an 'id_call_state'
field to it that references the list of possible states. This would make your
queries simpler.
create table call_state(
id_call_state text PRIMARY KEY,
libelle text);
INSERT INTO call_state (id_call_state, libelle) VALUES ('calls_connected',
'Connected'), ('calls_completed', 'Completed'), ('call_errors', 'Error');
> CREATE TABLE calls (
> id BIGINT NOT NULL, // sequence generator
id_call_state INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES call_state,
> user_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
> called TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>
> PRIMARY KEY (id),
> FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES my_users(id) ON DELETE CASCADE
> );
--
Regards, Vincent Veyron
http://libremen.com/
Legal case, contract and insurance claim management software
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
