Re: Database Design Question - Mailing list pgsql-general
| From | A_Schnabel@t-online.de (Andre Schnabel) |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Database Design Question |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | 001201c116cf$4b65f920$0201a8c0@aschnabel.homeip.net Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Database Design Question (Gonzo Rock <GonzoRock@Excite.com>) |
| Responses |
PostgreSQL to Dia program
("Brent R. Matzelle" <bmatzelle@yahoo.com>)
|
| List | pgsql-general |
Don't really know, if I am a crack .. but ...
Your 1st Design would be faster when joining the tables in a query or view. Furthermore an index on the id's (should be integers, right?) would use much less storage space than an index on character-fields.
The 2nd design is preferred by theoretical purists. The data are much more selfexplaining. If you only have a Parts-record you can see to which Parttype an Costumer it belongs without qeurying the other tables. With your 1st design you had to.
I think it's a question of performance, storagespace and readability.
If you need high performace use the 1st Design.
If you need a design, readable by people who don't work day by day with it, use the 2nd method.
It's only my opinion, must not be right.
CU,
Andre
----- Original Message -----From: Gonzo RockSent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:03 PMSubject: [GENERAL] Database Design QuestionA Question for those of you who consider yourself crack Database Designers.
I am currently moving a large database(100+Tables) into pgSQL... with the intention of deploying against 'any' SQL database in the future. The development side will be rigorously using Standard SQL constructs with no unique/proprietary extensions.
My question concerns establishing the relationships.
Currently Relationships between tables are established via a Unique Integer ID like this:
*=APrimaryKey
PartTypes Customer Parts
--------- -------- -----
PartTypeID CustomerID PartID
*PartType *Customer PartTypeID
Address CustomerID
*PartNumber(2FieldPrimaryKey)
*PartRevision(2FieldPrimaryKey)
PartName
HOWEVER; I have read lots of texts describing the Relational Design should be instead like this:
*=APrimaryKey
PartTypes Customer Parts
--------- -------- -----
*PartType *Customer PartType
Address *PartNumber(2FieldPrimaryKey)
*PartRevison(2FieldPrimaryKey)
PartName
Customer
Both Techniques have a unique foreign key back to the parent tables but one uses No.Meaningful.Info.Integer.Data for the ForeignKey while the second uses Human.Understandable.ForeignKeys
Is one recommended over the other??? Sure appreciate the commentary before I get in too deep with all these tables.
Thanks!
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
pgsql-general by date: