I agree with the barking up the wrong tree, building a physical tree in
tables doesn't sound right
given that you will have to create a new branch in the tree when a new
version/variation of ubuntu comes out.
Also think about how you are going to do basic queries like listing all
known unix variants; if that is hidden in the table names
then you'll have to issue DDL queries to do the work of SELECT queries,
which just sounds wrong to me.
I'd go for a tree, possibly using recursive CTE's to dig it.
On 2017-04-04 05:19, Tim Uckun wrote:
I have thought of doing something like a single table inheritance and
it
could be done but I thought this might be a little more elegant.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:15 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am trying to make postgres tables work like an object hierarchy. As
an
example I have done this.
I suspect you are barking up the wrong tree ;)
You are probably better off incorporating something like the "ltree"
type
to encode the taxonomy.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ltree.html
I haven't had a chance to leverage it myself but the concept it
embodies
is solid.
David J.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
