: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:02 AM
To: David Johnston
Cc: pgsql
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] General question
It is a user accounts, which might then become customer accounts, accounting
accounts, etc. I will use specialization and generalization concepts in
database. I did not complete the design
: David Johnston
To: salah jubeh
Cc: pgsql
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 3:46:24 PM
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] General question
What kind of account are we talking about? A user account, an accounting
account, a customer account, something else?
IF you were to use a non-shared foreign key in the
to account?
David J.
From: salah jubeh [mailto:s_ju...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:29 AM
To: David Johnston
Cc: pgsql
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] General question
Dear Johnston,
Thanks for the reply, I really get a lot of benefit from it. In my design, I
have several
porting to another database system.
Regards
From: David Johnston
To: salah jubeh ; pgsql
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:58:54 PM
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] General question
The main significant advantage that NOT making the primary key also a foreign
key is that you
The main significant advantage that NOT making the primary key also a
foreign key is that you can set the foreign key reference to ON DELETE SET
NULL. If they are shared this will not work since a primary key cannot be
NULL.
However, if you are going to do "ON DELETE CASCADE" anyway then the m
Thank you
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Jorge Godoy wrote:
> create database db_1 template db_2;
>
> This will create a new DB_1 using DB_2 as template. Otherwise, you'll
> change your code to connect to DB_2 instead of connecting to DB_1.
>
> --
> Jorge Godoy
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 20
create database db_1 template db_2;
This will create a new DB_1 using DB_2 as template. Otherwise, you'll
change your code to connect to DB_2 instead of connecting to DB_1.
--
Jorge Godoy
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 14:49, akp geek wrote:
> dear all -
>
> I am not supposed to a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:26:04 -0400, Brent Friedman
wrote:
> I am starting a project next week that looks like it will involve some
> massive sql rewrites to gain needed performance, and I am looking at
> implementing as many functions as possible. I haven't worried that much
> about specific i
* Janet Jacobsen (jsjacob...@lbl.gov) wrote:
> I looked at the documentation for partitions - it is the case, right, that I
> have to create the master table and the two partition tables (depending
> on the value of rbscore) and then copy the records from the existing
> table into the two partition
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I looked at the documentation for partitions - it is the case, right, that I
have to create the master table and the two partition tables (depending
on the value of rbscore) and then copy the records from the existing
table into the two partitions?
Stephen Frost wrot
* Janet Jacobsen (jsjacob...@lbl.gov) wrote:
> If they are going to spend 95% of their time querying the
> records that meet the 'good' criteria, what are the good
> strategies for ensuring good performance for those queries?
> (1) Should I partition the table into two partitions based on
> the val
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> I think it would be even more interesting to have partial indexes --
> ie specified with "WHERE rbscore < cutoff".
Yes- that's what I actually meant. Word got scrambled between brain
and fingers...
--
- David T. Wilson
david.t.wil...@gmail.co
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Janet Jacobsen wrote:
>
>> Can you suggest other strategies?
>
> Something that might be easier to play with is to create a (or
> several, to speed up other queries) functional index on the comparison
> between
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Janet Jacobsen wrote:
> Can you suggest other strategies?
Something that might be easier to play with is to create a (or
several, to speed up other queries) functional index on the comparison
between rbscore and the cutoff. It won't buy you anything on seq
scans,
14 matches
Mail list logo
