minimum postgres installation - Mailing list pgsql-general

Hi. I am new to postgres. I would like some advise on how to get a minimum
postgres installation. I want to use postgres embedded in application on
windows.

I have done the following.
C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL>msiexec /i  postgresql-8.2-int.msi  /qr
INTERNALLAUNCH=1 ADDLOCAL=server,psql SERVICEDOMAIN="%COMPUTERNAME%"
SERVICEPASSWORD="postgres" SUPERPASSWORD="postgres" BASEDIR="c:\postgres".

This gave me some what of a smaller footprint. I am looking to reduce it
even further. I am at 75m sofar.
I am assume I need the following.
<postgres>\data
<postgres>\bin\postgres
<postgres>\bin\pg_ctl
<postgres>bin\*.dll

Questions.
Do I need the other exes in <postgres>\bin?
Do I need the <postgres>\lib directory?
Do I need the <postgres>\share directory?
What other files can I delete?

Steve


----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Macnaghten" <eddy@edlsystems.com>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Cc: "Lincoln Yeoh" <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] How best to represent relationships in a database
generically?


> Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>> Hi, importantly do searches and other processing by those relationships.
>>
>> So, what would be the best way to store them so that a search for the
>> relationship like "grass is to cow", will also turn up cow is to tiger,
>> and goat is to tiger, and fish is to penguin (and penguin is to bigger
>> fish ;) ), and electricity is to computer. And a search for cow is to
>> goat, could turn up tiger is to lion, and goat is to cow.
>>
>> Is the only way to store all the links explicitly? e.g. have a huge link
>> table storing stuff like obj => cow, subj => grass, type => consumes,
>> probability=90% ( => means points/links to). Or even just have one table
>> (links are objects too).
>
> Hi
>
> This is a generic database design problem rather than a Postgres or SQL
> one, but here goes
>
> Excuse ASCII art..
>
> What you really have is a multi - multi relationship, such as....
>
>
>    A  <--->  B
>
>
> Where A is a table containing grass, cow, fish
> and B is the table containing cow, tiger and penguin
>
> I know, A and B are the same table, so the multi - relationship is in fact
>
>   A <----> A
>
> As you cannot have a multi-multi relationship in a RDBMS, you need a
> "link" table...
>
>  A  ---> C <----B
>
> or more precisely
>
> A  ---> C < --- A
>
> This would be represented as tables as something like
>
> create table thingy (
>   thingy_key varchar(12)  primary key,
>   thingy_desc  varchar(30)
>   ....
>  );
> or whatever
>
> and...
>
> create table munchies (
>  eater varchar(12) not null,
>  dinner varchar(12)  not null
>  probablility_pc number(4,2)
>  constraing pkey_munchies primary key(eater, dinner) );
>
> or whatever, where "eater" and "dinner" are foreign keys for "thingy_key"
>
> The munchies table can get big, but do not worry about that.  It is small
> and RDBMS (especially Postgres) should handle it well even on a smallish
> machine.
>
> Hope that makes sense
>
> Eddy
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>       match
>