Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281139460.555-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > 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? An internal trigger? 'ON DELETE FROM person DELETE FROM address where OID=?' ? Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: