On Friday 15 August 2003 02:56 pm, elein wrote:
> In response to both Andrew Gould and Ron Johnson...
>
> If arrays are not natural in the organization of
> your data, don't use them. That is the guideline.
>
> If the array defines something specific they are
> very natural. The confusion could be that arrays
> are abstract types.
>
> Specific implementations which use arrays might
> be clearer. For example, a definition of a polygon
> is an array of Points. Points, themselves are an
> array.
>
> (The actual postgreSQL implementation of polygons and points
> doesn't use the newer cleaner array abstraction, I think.
> But if I were reimplementing them, I would build on
> top of the new array capabilities. The point is to show
> an array structured object which makes sense in context.)
>
> Of course you can denomalize via arrays, but it tends
> to make things harder for you. And I believe the
> same thing is true for denormalized integer columns.
>
> elein
> =============================================================
> elein@varlena.com www.varlena.com
Thanks, Elein. The polygon example makes it clearer. In the books I have
here, the examples show how to use arrays but they use data that I would move
to another table.
Best regards,
Andrew
