I would also use a small join table with your sets ... so your users can add properties on the fly.
On May 8, 9:13 am, Vipin <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 7, 8:09 pm, "Billee D." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sometimes it''s a matter of taste or design constraint, but why not > > use a small join table and a foreign key? ENUM is also a great choice, > > as these guys have pointed out, but sometimes there is a bit of > > overhead -- but you shouldn't worry about that until it becomes an > > issue. Personally, I find it easier to maintain a simple join table > > and FK relationships than to mess with ENUM field types. > > > I don't know if this is still applicable, but it seems like there is a > > bit of data massaging in Rails for the ENUM type (Rails converts it > > internally to VARCHAR): > > >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/2005-January/001536.html > > > I like to let the database do as much work as it can, :-) > > > HTH! > > > Billee D. > > > On May 7, 4:43 am, Vipin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > in a database table if there is a field which has a certain set of > > > fixed values. for example > > > staus => {Single, Married, Divorced } > > > OR > > > state => {California, Albama, Olaska ...} > > > > so what should be preferred way out of the following for storing the > > > values > > > > 1. Keep the field as "string(Rails)" VARCHAR(MySQL) itself ....and > > > while showing the field just show the field value. > > > > 2. Keep the field internally as a code like {:california => > > > 01, :albama => 02, washington => 03 ....} but while showing the state > > > show only the corresponding state. > > > > By using option 2, a certain disadvantage is extra computation time > > > required to find out corresponding state name based on code when > > > showing the state field to user. But an advantage could be in terms of > > > smaller database. In my opinion, saving 01 as an integer could save > > > significant space than storing "california" if number of records > > > happen to be in tens of thousands . > > > > please suggest ?? > > > > vipin > > But Bilee, > if we use another table and do the mapping through foreign key won;t > it be even poorer as we will be making 2 SQL queries to access the > same record. which we are doing in one SQL query in above two > methods. > > But i ll certainly check the link provided. > > vipin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
