So is it still advisable not to store it in a string format like 'jarraa, mooreg3, flowerpower' [read my comments below please] awaiting some feedback. -assad On 1/12/06, Assad Jarrahian <jarraa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alban and Tino, > More explanations lie below. > A document contains to field, from field, subject, message, etc > > > >>documentid,username,groupname (as real fields) > > No, it would look like this: > > > > (1,'jarraa','postgres','keith') to match your original schema. > > I dont understand it. what type would it be (the second column) and > what constraint would it have. > And how can I get away with storing just one table. According to my > thougths, I seem to need two tables for certain (could be wrong). > Schemas as follows: > > (documentID, From,subject, message ....) > (doucumentID, OneOfTheManyToFieldReciepient) > > > Keep in mind that I dont know how many entries are in the To field > (its just one string coming from the client!). IT would be helpful to > think of this as just like an email system (but a closed one, as in > you have everybody's username in the db). Furhtermore think of social > networks (thats what I am building). > > > > > > But it really depends on what you want to solve here. > > What data exactly do you have and how do you want to look > > for data? I mean, what are the keys? > > > I rarely analyze data I recieve (besides for constraints). We have > lucene (java search engine) indexing the db contents and almost all > *SELECT* queries goto that first and then I get an ID list (since > lucene does not store the data) and I retrieve the information in the > format as the same way it came in. > Lucene, being in java can split up tokens fairly easily and quickly > and our Lucene engineer likes it in the format of string ' name, > name, name' > > > Do you have a specific "group" and want to see all "docs" for > > that group? And then you have a user and want to see all "docs" > > for this user? Or is it the other way round and you have > > a "doc" and want to see responsible users and/or groups? > see above explanation of lucene. > > > And are groups independend from users? Or are users always > > in one or many groups? ... > > A user can belong to many groups. A user can write a "document" To > users, and To groups. The constrainfo user being the user is in the db > and for groups, he/she has to be a member of it. > > Users Schema > (username, userInfo) > Group Schema (2 tables) > (groupID, groupname, groupInfo) > (groupID, oneOfTheManyGroupMembers) > > Hope this helps and that I am making sense now. Sorry for the confusion. > > -assad > > On 1/12/06, Tino Wildenhain <tino@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Assad Jarrahian schrieb: > > > Tino, thanks for your response > > > > > >>Your schema could rather look like this: > > >> > > >>documentid,username,groupname (as real fields) > > >> > > > > > > > > > Okay, so a typical document can be addressed to any number of users/groups. so > > > according to an example with the to field = 'jarraa, postgres, keith', > > > some rows could be like > > > > > > (1, jarraa, ) > > > (1, , postgres) > > > (1, keith, ) > > > > > > > No, it would look like this: > > > > (1,'jarraa','postgres','keith') to match your original schema. > > > > But it really depends on what you want to solve here. > > What data exactly do you have and how do you want to look > > for data? I mean, what are the keys? > > > > Do you have a specific "group" and want to see all "docs" for > > that group? And then you have a user and want to see all "docs" > > for this user? Or is it the other way round and you have > > a "doc" and want to see responsible users and/or groups? > > And are groups independend from users? Or are users always > > in one or many groups? ... > > > > >
