On 2017-04-04 09:12, Tim Uckun wrote:
I agree with the barking up the wrong tree, building a physical tree
in tables doesn't sound right
given that you will have to create a new branch in the tree when a new
version/variation of ubuntu comes out.
This doesn't bother me that much.
It should. You are using tables as data, which is pretty much always a
smell of bad design.
I could be pedantic and ask how you would store unix version "14.5
\%funky penguin%/ rev 1,5"
given that most of that name consists of characters that are not allowed
in a table name.
Also think about how you are going to do basic queries like listing
all known unix variants; if that is hidden in the table namesthen
you'll have to issue DDL queries to do the work of SELECT queries,
which just sounds wrong to me.
Yes this might be a problem but one I could easily overcome.
Sure, but why would you though? You already have everything in place for
creating records,
why bother creating a different system just for the unix versions?
I'd go for a tree, possibly using recursive CTE's to dig it.
I was thinking a window function but yea I am sure there is a way to
do it with a flat table.
I'm not sure you can do it with windowing actually,
given that you'd have to sort every record based on a match with the
previous record.
But I've never tried it because CTE's make it so easy :-)
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:43 PM, vinny <vinny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with the barking up the wrong tree, building a physical tree
in tables doesn't sound right
given that you will have to create a new branch in the tree when a
new version/variation of ubuntu comes out.
Also think about how you are going to do basic queries like listing
all known unix variants; if that is hidden in the table names
then you'll have to issue DDL queries to do the work of SELECT
queries, which just sounds wrong to me.
I'd go for a tree, possibly using recursive CTE's to dig it.
On 2017-04-04 05:19, Tim Uckun wrote:
I have thought of doing something like a single table inheritance
and it
could be done but I thought this might be a little more elegant.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:15 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Tim Uckun <timuckun@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am trying to make postgres tables work like an object hierarchy.
As an
example I have done this.
I suspect you are barking up the wrong tree ;)
You are probably better off incorporating something like the "ltree"
type
to encode the taxonomy.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ltree.html [1]
I haven't had a chance to leverage it myself but the concept it
embodies
is solid.
David J.
Links:
------
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ltree.html
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
