Assad Jarrahian schrieb: > what drove me to store it that way was more of a performance issue. > > So if I store a documentID and then have a seperate table names, to_field > I will have to store the username/groupname as such > to_field: > documentID username > docuementID groupname > docuementID usernamename > >From what I see below (btw, try to follow the way people cite on mailinglists)
Your schema could rather look like this: documentid,username,groupname (as real fields) > > based on that it seems that to read (Which occurs a lot more than > writing) a document I will have to go an find all the rows with > documentID in the to field and then cat them somehow and then return cat them? Why? (There is text concenation btw) > the whole document. Even with an index built on the documentID of the > to field, it seems to be resource intensive (correct me if I am > wrong). Even if I were to do this, I would still have to check the > constraints by hand (since the entry can either be a username or a > groupname (and if its a group, the user has to belong to that group). Well no, as above, you would have the usual foreign keys. > > So coming back to the original synopsis. Is there a way I can just > send the whole document to a stored procedure and then the stored > procedure takes the text component of it and tokenizes it and then I > do constraint checks on it? There is ;) But I doubt Tom likes to show you the dark side [tm] ;) ... > > > On 1/11/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Assad Jarrahian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> A column of type text contains username's and groupname's followed >>>by comma (eg. 'jarraa, mooreg3, keith') [it is stored this way >>>because it will be displayed in this format]. ++Tino ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
