Re: confused by select.
От | JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: confused by select. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200007062131.XAA19912@hot.jw.home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: confused by select. ("Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy@chapelperilous.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: confused by select.
|
Список | pgsql-sql |
Brett W. McCoy wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John wrote: > > > I would like to get the id's where the customer has purchased an item of a > > specific type. > > > > Problem A: most people order more than one item at a time. > > So the 'items' field is a colon delimitted text field containing the > > skus of the purchased items. > > <example of items field -- 1111:1212:W233:QA66> > > I don't understand why you are doing it this way? Why not create a > history table with individual skus that are each part of an order? > > create table history (id int2, order int2, sku char(4)); > > You would, of course, put some constraints to make sure that skus in the > history table actually exist in the inventory table (i.e., foreign key), > and have the history id as a serial type to make the primary key. Then you > can have the same order number reference multiple inventory items. > > Then you can do easier joins, search for unique orders with a count of > items in each order, and so forth, all in SQL. IMHO the correct suggestion. Just want to underline it. A list of purchases is usually a subset of another relation. Remember, RDBMS means RELATIONAL Database Management System! So if you setup your tables with a relational angle of view, the system will do well. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: