Alban Hertroys wrote:
> On May 2, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Mike Christensen wrote:
>
>> ...
>> create table Threads ( ... Tags int2[], ...);
>>
>> To me this seems cleaner, but I'm wondering about performance. If I
>> had millions of threads, is a JOIN going to be faster? ...
>
> ...I don't think ar
Yeah I talked with some other SQL guru friends of mine and they all agree
the separate table is the way to go for a number of reasons, so that's what
I'll stick with. It was just one of those things where you see a new
feature and try to find an excuse to try it out
Thanks!
Mike
On Sat, May 2, 2
On May 2, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Mike Christensen wrote:
Using this, I could completely get rid of ThreadTags and have a
table like this:
create table Threads (
Id uuid not null,
Posted timestamp not null,
Subject varchar(255) not null,
Replies int4 not null,
PosterId uuid not null,
Let's say you have a table called Threads, and each thread can have zero or
more "tags" associated with it. A tag is just a byte which maps to some
enum somewhere.
There's two ways I can think of to do this. The first would be to have:
create table Threads (
Id uuid not null,
Posted timesta
Let's say you have a table called Threads, and each thread can have zero or
more "tags" associated with it. A tag is just a byte which maps to some
enum somewhere.
There's two ways I can think of to do this. The first would be to have:
create table Threads (
Id uuid not null,
Posted timesta
