Re: DECODE
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DECODE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | web-495718@davinci.ethosmedia.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | DECODE (David Link <dlink@soundscan.com>) |
Список | pgsql-novice |
David, > You don't think having a separate reference table for each code > lookup > -- that is, making the datamodel more fully normalized will not > impact > performance? Probably nominally because there will be so few rows in > them. It will impact performance no more than, and perhaps less than, evaluating a multi-stage CASE statement for each row in the query. And this kind of performance concern is only an issue if you're trying to run a public web site on budget hardware ... otherwise, the other elements of your system will be more of a bottleneck than the query parser! I regularly use queries and views that involve 6-9 tables, three UNIONS, and two sub-selects in each UNION ... and still get a 2-3 second response time on the 500mhz Celeron production machine. I actually use a single table to store all my miscellaneous reference codes in most databases. Like: CREATE TABLE misc_codes ( code_type VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL, code_value VARCHAR(30) NOT NULL, code_desc VARCHAR(200) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT codes_PK PRIMARY KEY (code_type, code_value) ); This is an immensely convenient approach from a maintainence perspective, although it has some drawbacks. For one, one has to be careful to filter the codes by code_type *before* any aggregate operators are applied, or duplicate codes will result in bad aggregate values. If you have a completely star-topology database, it's probably better to go the 100% normal way, and have a seperate table for each code. -Josh ______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________ Josh Berkus Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com and data management solutions (415) 565-7293 for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533 and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
Вложения
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: