On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 16:04:26 -0500,
Peter Fein <pfein@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, this makes a lot of sense & is just cleaner. Would you continue to
> do it this way if there were around a dozen derived tables (most with
> one or two columns)? I remember reading somewhere (perhaps the PG
> docs?) that a table with most of its columns NULL was a sign of
> misdesign as well... FWIW, most of the columns are small - varchar,
> ints, an array or two.
That may be bordering on a religious debate. There are people that say
you shouldn't have NULLs and should use an extra table instead.
I think for most people it is a matter of what will be easier to understand
and to some extent what is more efficient, that should dictate the design.
