[Fwd: [GENERAL] arrays of tables] - Mailing list pgsql-general

> Hmmm, it doesn't sound like you really need an array
> of tables unless you plan to have a separate table for each atom.
> Most likely, however, you will have all your atoms in one table
> in which case you can simply store the key for the set of
> atoms you are interested in, in the molecules table.
> That I think is the standard relational model.

   I'm fairly new to the list (and to pgSQL), so I'll risk embarrassing
 myself and opening up a whole can of worms at the same time... so
 here goes.

   You are correct - that is the standard relational model.  He was
 discussing the object-oriented features, though, which follow th
 eobject-oriented philosphy.  Most of the database gurus that I know
have
 been dealing with databases since long before ORDBMS systems were
 available, and are so used to thinking of everything in terms of the
 relational model, that it seems difficult for them to think about them
 in the OO philosophy.  For me,being an OO programmer from before I
 started working on databases, the OO idea just comes naturally.

    In fact, my question last week about arrays was a crude attempt to
 recreate some of the OO features available in Oracle 8.  The project
was
 in a rush, and I didn't have time to properly explore how to implement
 it in pgSQL.   I didn't have time to explore the capabilities of the
 system, I just had to implement something that would work and could be
 done quickly.  Then, it turns out that the customer decided that they
 really didn't need to store that data anyway.  I guess that's how life
 goes.

 steve> Hmmm, it doesn't sound like you really need an array
> of tables unless you plan to have a separate table for each atom.
> Most likely, however, you will have all your atoms in one table
> in which case you can simply store the key for the set of
> atoms you are interested in, in the molecules table.
> That I think is the standard relational model.

  I'm fairly new to the list (and to pgSQL), so I'll risk embarrassing
myself and opening up a whole can of worms at the same time...

  You are correct - that is the standard relational model.  He was
discussing the object-oriented features, though, which follow th
eobject-oriented philosphy.  Most of the database gurus that I know have
been dealing with databases since long before ORDBMS systems were
available, and are so used to thinking of everything in terms of the
relational model, that it seems difficult for them to think about them
in the OO philosophy.  For me,being an OO programmer from before I
started working on databases, the OO idea just comes naturally.

   In fact, my question last week about arrays was a crude attempt to
recreate some of the OO features available in Oracle 8.  The project was
in a rush, and I didn't have time to properly explore how to implement
it in pgSQL.   I didn't have time to explore the capabilities of the
system, I just had to implement something that would work and could be
done quickly.  Then, it turns out that the customer decided that they
really didn't need to store that data anyway.  I guess that's how life
goes.

steve