Re: Database normalization - Mailing list pgsql-sql

From Sebastian Ritter
Subject Re: Database normalization
Date
Msg-id 99b656cb0708280815w141e715bhed5542317d709a17@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Database normalization  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
Responses Re: Database normalization  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
List pgsql-sql
Hi,

On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:22PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
> Thanks for the information.
>
> Both tables would be exactly sames apart from the  foreign key relation to
> clients or services.

Hmm.  Are the services or clients tables different?  A useful rule of
thumb is that, to the extent you can sort things into "kinds of
data", then you should have exactly one space for each one.  (I hope
that's clear.)

  The table definition is exactly the same. The only difference is whether the
  row refers to a client or service.
 

> Another factor ive been considering is that one of the fields in this
> table(s) definition(s) is free flowing text which could potentially become
> very large. Should I take this in to
> consideration when deciding whether to split the tables? In terms of
> searching speed that is.

I'd put it in its own table, probably, unless you're going to use it
frequently.

  Why would frequency of use change whether or not I use one or two tables?
 
Sebastian

pgsql-sql by date:

Previous
From: "Sebastian Ritter"
Date:
Subject: Re: Database normalization
Next
From: "Bart Degryse"
Date:
Subject: Re: Database normalization