Hello David,
Monday, July 05, 1999 you wrote:
D> If you are interested in other solutions that do not involve adding
D> record number support (which I personally still feel to be a mistake in
D> a set orientated dbms)
Why? There will be no such field as "record number", the only
place where it can exist is the field which references another
table. I can quite share your feeling about wrongness of
physical-oriented things in abstract tables, but don't
plain old indices deal with physical record numbers? We could
do the same - hide the value stored in such field and only
offer the user ability to use it in queries without knowing
the value.
D> then have you considered an application server
D> linked to triggers.
Unfortunately, every day user demands new types of reports
for financial analysis. And nobody knows what will be user's
wish tomorrow.
And, besides, it is not only my personal wish. What I am
proposing is huge (dozen-fold) performance gain on widespread
tasks. If you implement this, happy users will erect a gold
monument to Postgres development team.
Best regards, Leon
