Re: Recursive Arrays 101
От | Adrian Klaver |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Recursive Arrays 101 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 562E451A.506@aklaver.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Recursive Arrays 101 (Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Recursive Arrays 101
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 10/26/2015 08:12 AM, Rob Sargent wrote: > On 10/26/2015 08:43 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> On 10/25/15 8:10 PM, David Blomstrom wrote: >>> @ Adrian Klaver: Oh, so you're suggesting I make separate tables for >>> kingdoms, classes and on down to species. I'll research foreign keys and >>> see what I can come up with. I hope I can make separate tables for >>> mammal species, bird species, fish species, etc. There are just so many >>> species - especially fish - the spreadsheets I use to organize them are >>> just about maxed out as it is. >> >> The suggestion is simply to have 7 tables: >> >> CREATE TABLE kingdom( >> kingdom_id serial PRIMARY KEY >> , kingdom_name text NOT NULL >> , ... >> ); >> CREATE TABLE phylum( >> phylum_id serial PRIMARY KEY >> , kingdom_id int NOT NULL REFERENCES kingdom >> , ... >> ); >> CREATE TABLE class( >> ... >> ); >> >> and so-on. > Seems to me that if life boils down to four attributes one would have a > single table with those four attributes on the particular life form. Out of curiosity what are those four attributes? It would have made memorizing all those organisms a lot easier when I was in school:) > Now, the four attributes could be ids into definitional tables but I > suspect the querying will be done string/name so why complicate the > lookups: make the names a foreign key in the defs if necessary. > > Personally I think the recursive structure is the way to go. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: