Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
As you can see, the NULLs are not stored, making this system much more
efficient on storage space.
Tommorrow I'll (hopefully) write up how to query this for
comparisons. It would help if you gave a little more details about
what specific comparison you're doing, e.g. between tables or table to
value, comparing just the last value or all rows, etc.
Got it. I can see how it would be more efficient in storing. At this
point it would require a lot of query and code rewrites to handle it.
Fortunately, we're looking for alternatives for the next revision and
we're leaving ourselves open for a rewrite much to the boss's chagrin.
I'm not sure about the save in storage. See the Hannu Krosing
arguments.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
