Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column - Mailing list pgsql-novice
From | Randy Neumann |
---|---|
Subject | Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200210172019.OAA94307@mail.simn.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column ("Jules Alberts" <jules.alberts@arbodienst-limburg.nl>) |
Responses |
Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column
Re: char() or varchar() for frequently used column |
List | pgsql-novice |
If your really that worried about this you will just have to have an effective date and an expiration date on the codes. Leave the expiration date either null or a VERY VERY large value. On Thursday 17 October 2002 07:21 am, you wrote: > On 17 Oct 2002 at 13:28, paul butler wrote: > > Purely for discussion: > > > > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:23, Jules Alberts wrote: > > > I have considered this. As a matter of fact, that is the way it is in > > > our current db but I'm not really happy with it. Theoretically > > > > CODE > > > > > should never change and is therefore safe to use as primary key. > > > > But > > > > > having an "extra" serial primary key will make the db more > > > > flexible > > > > > regarding to unforeseen complications. > > > > Could you not make NAME not unique? Then you could have a > > new code for the same name, not affecting previous records. If a > > code changes, then its a new code, or the old code with a new > > name > > Both CODE and NAME are unique. And they will _never_ change. Until they > do :-). These are mostly tables which are not our own, stuff like > country codes, medical diagnosises etc. They comply to ISO standards. > Someone may decide to change them. Of course we could tackle this by > using an UPDATE CASCADE, but beside that I want a truly unique and > unchangeable column in the table. Hence the ID field, which is > redundant as long as nothing unchangeable changes, merely a safeguard. > > > >Yeah, this happens. Later people want to expire particular codes, > > >or > > >change their meaning, but not for the existing records that refer to > > >them... > > > > If all attributes are 'unique' I don't see how you could change a > > codes 'meaning' without (effectively not mechanically) cascading > > these changes to existing records > > > > >From my own experience, I would also say that there is value in > > >being > > >able to sequence the codes in a non-alphabetic order. I add > > >another > > > > "seq" column to such tables, to allow their ordering to be arbitrarily > > adjusted as well. > > > > Just wondering aloud > > > > Cheers > > > > Paul Butler > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
pgsql-novice by date: