Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10717.949072096@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: >> What I don't understand yet is whether the contents of table >> "address" have any connection to the data stored in table "person". >> If not, why must I create a table in order to define a datatype? Seems >> like a separate CREATE DATATYPE command would make more sense... > Not quite an answer to your question, but my guess is that 'address > ADDRESS' would contain a pointer (OID) to the address table ... so the > person table would be realtively small in comparison to the address table > ... > The way I look at the above, its a 'JOIN' at table create time, based on a > unique value, the OID ... Hmm. OK, that makes sense, because I know I've seen places in the code that think that any "set type" is represented as an OID. I never understood what that was all about, but in this context that would be what would happen. Assuming that this facility is the same as what the code calls a set, that is. So, if I looked into table address, presumably I'd find rows corresponding to each value that is (ever has been?) stored in another table with an ADDRESS column. How do no-longer-useful values get cleaned out of the address table, do you suppose? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: