So is it still advisable not to store it in a string format like
'jarraa, mooreg3, flowerpower' [read my comments below please]
awaiting some feedback.
-assad
On 1/12/06, Assad Jarrahian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alban and Tino,
> More explanations lie below.
> A document contains to field,
Alban and Tino,
More explanations lie below.
A document contains to field, from field, subject, message, etc
> >>documentid,username,groupname (as real fields)
> No, it would look like this:
>
> (1,'jarraa','postgres','keith') to match your original schema.
I dont understand it. what type would
Assad Jarrahian schrieb:
> Tino, thanks for your response
>
>>Your schema could rather look like this:
>>
>>documentid,username,groupname (as real fields)
>>
>
>
> Okay, so a typical document can be addressed to any number of users/groups.
> so
> according to an example with the to field = 'j
Assad Jarrahian wrote:
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
Why a seperate table? From what you showed us you don't seem to need
that. Just use 3 columns for the seperate entries instead o
Tino, thanks for your response
>
> Your schema could rather look like this:
>
> documentid,username,groupname (as real fields)
>
Okay, so a typical document can be addressed to any number of users/groups. so
according to an example with the to field = 'jarraa, postgres, keith',
some rows could b
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
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
...
based on that it seem
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].
You should *not* allow display concerns to drive your database layout
Problem:
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].
What is needed is a constrain check. To make sure that every time a
row is inserted into the table, this colum
