On 15 March 2010 17:22, Frank Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay here's why I want to do it. > The first table contains just data. > The second table will be a view whose data can change depending on > other external factors. It could change daily. > Yes this second table could be an association but I would have > preferred it not to be.
Why would you prefer it not to be? You are presumably going to have some sort of key linking the two tables otherwise how do you know which rows in the tables go together. In that case what overhead is there to using two models? Rails should be able to build essentially the same queries as you would do yourself. Colin > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Aldric Giacomoni <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I mean, maybe I'm completely off, but it sounds like you just want to >> create an extra table. What possible benefit could you derive from this, >> if the data won't be separate? I guess, if both your tables have 200 >> fields, you would eventually derive an increase in read speeds if you >> don't need all the data.. But I can't think of another reason. >> >> You _can_ do it. Sometimes it's just a really bad idea, but you can >> always do it. >> -- > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
