On 8 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
The main difference (in the inheritance part) is that a relation does
not have one fixed set of fields, but can have any additional fields
added in inherited tables and still be part of to the base table as
well.
This is trivial to do with a view.
Curt Sampson wrote:
On 8 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
The main difference (in the inheritance part) is that a relation does
not have one fixed set of fields, but can have any additional fields
added in inherited tables and still be part of to the base table as
well.
This is trivial to
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
And views of this sort are trivial to do using PG's OO extensions.
So long as you don't mind them being broken, yeah. But hell, when someone
asks for a unique constraint, they probably don't really mean it, do they?
And what's wrong with multiple records
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
And views of this sort are trivial to do using PG's OO extensions.
So long as you don't mind them being broken, yeah. But hell, when someone
asks for a unique constraint, they probably don't really mean it, do they?
Good grief,
On 29 Jul 2002, Stephen Deasey wrote:
Table inheritance offers data model extensibility. New (derived) tables
can be added to the system, and will work with existing code that
opperates on the base tables, without having to hack up all the code.
And why does this not work with the standard
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 12:15, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Could you brief me why do they discourage a syntactical frontent to a
feature that is trivially implemented ?
What's the point of adding it? It's just one more
On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 16:32, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 12:15, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Could you brief me why do they discourage a syntactical frontent to a
feature that is trivially implemented
On 3 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 16:32, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Perhaps this is the problem. I disagree that it's a higher level.
I don't mean morally higher ;)
Just more concise and easier to grasp, same as VIEW vs. TABLE + ON
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 22:39, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 1 Aug 2002, Greg Copeland wrote:
For some reason,
many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is
never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in the code
base. That is, of course, completely
Matthew Tedder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most web sites MySQL seems to work fine, but overall PostgreSQL offers
more capabilites so why build upon a limited base such as MySQL?
Does anyone here have any idea as to why so many people select MySQL when
both systems are open sourced?
Some
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
Table inheritance offers data model extensibility. New (derived) tables
can be added to the system, and
Well, if you also have soundcard_products, in your example you could have a
product which is both a networkcard AND a soundcard. No way to restrict
that a product can be only one 'subclass' at a time... If you can make that
restriction using the relational model, you can do the same as with
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 13:53, Jeff Davis wrote:
Well, if you also have soundcard_products, in your example you could have a
product which is both a networkcard AND a soundcard. No way to restrict
that a product can be only one 'subclass' at a time... If you can make that
restriction using
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to find this argument a lot on the list here. For some reason,
many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is
never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in the code
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Isn't inheritance kinda one of those things that is required in order to
be consider ourselves ORBDMS, which we do classify our selves as being?
Well, it depends on what you call an ORDBMS. By the standards of
Date and Darwen in _The Third
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 08:55, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Isn't inheritance kinda one of those things that is required in order to
be consider ourselves ORBDMS, which we do classify our selves as being?
Well, it depends on what you call an ORDBMS. By
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 05:39, Curt Sampson wrote:
Because SQL99 is non-relational in many ways, so I guess they
figured making it non-relational in one more way can't hurt.
I mean come on, this is a language which started out not even
relationally complete!
Could you point me to some pure
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Is _The Third Manifesto_ available online ?
No. It's a book, and not a terribly small one, either.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201709287/
Could you brief me why do they discourage a syntactical frontent to a
feature that is trivially
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Could you point me to some pure relational languages ?
Preferrably not pure academic at the same time ;)
The QUEL and PostQUEL languages used in Ingres and the old Postgres were
rather more relational than SQL.
BTW, what other parts of SQL do you consider
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 12:15, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Is _The Third Manifesto_ available online ?
No. It's a book, and not a terribly small one, either.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201709287/
Could you brief me why do they discourage a
* Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020802 06:32]:
Your argument can as well be used against VIEWs - whats the point of
having them, when they can trivially be implemented using ON XXX DO
INSTEAD rules.
Well, at least on PostgreSQL it makes a difference. We allow views to
have permissions
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 23:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to find this argument a lot on the list here. For some reason,
many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is
never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 23:30, Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I did not notice any of the core developers making that case.
I've seen it used a lot.
Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear: I meant that no one who's familiar
with the code base has made that argument
Hi
And what's the problem with networkcard_products being a separate table
that shares a key with the products table?
CREATE TABLE products (product_id int, ...)
CREATE TABLE networkcard_products_data (product_id int, ...)
CREATE VIEW networkcard_products AS
SELECT
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:54, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 16:00, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 30 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Bruce Momjian:
It causes too much complexity in other parts of the
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to find this argument a lot on the list here. For some reason,
many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is
never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in the code
base. That is, of course, completely
On 31 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
An it is often easier to map OO languages to OOR database when you dont
have to change your mindset when going through the interface.
But you have to anyway! Adding this inheritance does not remove the
relational model; it's still there right in front of
On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 18:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we
[don't cc: me, please.]
[please leave proper attribution in]
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 10:45, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we would have added it
ourselves. It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
[Inheritance]
How
[No cc: please. Especially if you're not commenting on anything I said]
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 13:46, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
As an implementor I'm always wary of using features nobody else has,
especially in databases. So, if I'd want postgres to have one thing
nobody else has, it would be the most complete standard SQL
implementation - so it would at least be the other products' fault if
I'd have to do any
[Still no cc:s please]
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:28, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020730 08:01]:
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 13:46, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
I think one of the values of it is that it is something that no one else
has. It
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
(And that's where I'm starting to say things I've said before. So I'll
just shut up now.)
May be you can contribute some code :)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
2. I expect that even most PostgreSQL--or even database--experts don't
have a real understanding of relational theory, anyway. That we still
have table inheritance shows that. As far as I can tell, there is
nothing whatsoever that table inheritance does that the relational model
does not
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
[Still no cc:s please]
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:28, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020730 08:01]:
On Tue, 2002-07-30
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Jeff Davis wrote:
Can you point me (someone without a real understanding of relational theory)
to some good resources that explain the concepts well?
C. J. Date's _An Introduction to Database Systems, Seventh Edition_ is
a fat tome that will give you an extremely good
We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we would have added it
ourselves. It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
How about dropping it, then?
Just start to emit
WARNING: inheritance will be dropped with postgres 8.0
WARNING: please refer to http://.../
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Bruce Momjian:
It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
That's one reason.
Seems like somewhat valid reason. But still not enough to do a lot of
work _and_ annoy a lot of existing users :)
Curt
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020730 04:20]:
On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 18:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
and
there is nothing whatsoever that table inheritance does that the
relational model does not handle
That's the other
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 02:01:35PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
As an implementor I'm always wary of using features nobody else has,
especially in databases. So, if I'd want postgres to have one thing
nobody else has, it would be the most complete standard SQL
... But I strongly feel that having a feature
because 'it is something that no one else has. It distinguishes us.' is
no justification at all.
One reason why we have a database which *does* come very close to the
standards is precisely because it had (and has) things which no one else
had
On 29 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
It is mostly a syntactic thing that makes it easier to
On 30 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Bruce Momjian:
It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
That's one reason.
Seems like somewhat valid reason. But still not enough to do a lot of
work
As for why PostgreSQL is less popular than MySQL, I think it is all
momentum from 1996 when MySQL worked and we sometimes crashed. Looking
forward, I don't know many people who choose MySQL _if_ they consider
both PostgreSQL and MySQL, so the discussions people have over MySQL vs.
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 16:00, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 30 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 14:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Bruce Momjian:
It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
That's one reason.
Seems like somewhat
On 31 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
I would not rush to drop advanced features, as they may be hard to put
back later.
If they are hard to put back, it's generally because the other code
in the system that relates to it has changed, so you can't just bring
back what is in the old versions in
On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 08:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a long standing curiosity?
e) Inertia. MySQL got more popular way back when; the reasons may no longer
f) Win32 Support. I can download a setup.exe for mysql and have it up
and running quickly on Windows. I think that native Win32
I highly doubt that. Relating two tables to each other via a key, and
joining them together, allows you to do everything that inheritance
allows you to do, but also more. If you have difficulty with keys and
joins, well, you really probably want to stop and fix that problem
before you do
On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 08:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a long standing curiosity?
e) Inertia. MySQL got more popular way back when; the reasons
may no longer
f) Win32 Support. I can download a setup.exe for mysql and have it up
and running quickly on Windows. I think that native
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I highly doubt that. Relating two tables to each other via a key, and
joining them together, allows you to do everything that inheritance
allows you to do, but also more. If you have difficulty with keys and
joins, well, you really
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I highly doubt that. Relating two tables to each other via a key, and
joining them together, allows you to do everything that inheritance
allows you to do, but also more. If you have difficulty with keys and
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You can add children without modifying your code. It is classic C++
inheritance; parent table accesses work with the new child tables
automatically.
I don't see how my method doesn't do this as well. What code do you have
to modify in the
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You can add children without modifying your code. It is classic C++
inheritance; parent table accesses work with the new child tables
automatically.
I don't see how my method doesn't do this as well. What code do you have
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You can add children without modifying your code. It is classic C++
inheritance; parent table accesses work with the new child tables
automatically.
I don't see how my
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 04:35, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 31 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
I would not rush to drop advanced features, as they may be hard to put
back later.
If they are hard to put back, it's generally because the other code
in the system that relates to it has changed, so
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course we could go the other way and remove support for VIEW's as
they can be done using a table and a ON SELECT DO INSTEAD rule.
Two points for Hannu ;-)
Seriously, this entire thread seems a waste of bandwidth to me.
Inheritance as a feature isn't
Just a long standing curiosity?
For most web sites MySQL seems to work fine, but overall PostgreSQL offers
more capabilites so why build upon a limited base such as MySQL?
Does anyone here have any idea as to why so many people select MySQL when
both systems are open sourced?
Three
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
e) Inertia. MySQL got more popular way back when; the reasons may no longer
apply, but nobody is going to move to PostgreSQL without _compelling_ reason,
and you'll have to show something _really compelling_.
I would like to add one
well that and people tend to drift towards an easy answer,
like php... amazing how that combo is so popular... hrrmm...
Roderick A. Anderson writes:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
e) Inertia. MySQL got more popular way back when; the reasons may no longer
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Chris Humphries wrote:
well that and people tend to drift towards an easy answer,
like php... amazing how that combo is so popular... hrrmm...
Well people seem to get so ... about php that I didn't want to touch that
topic.
Rod
--
Open Source Software - Sometimes
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
I would like to add one other thought. There are many web site
designers that get thrust into being a web site programmer. Without
an understanding of database design and a novice programmers (?) view
of the process the benefits of letting the
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we would have added it
ourselves. It causes too much
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we would have added it
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we would
On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 19:01, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
to come up with anything.
It is
66 matches
Mail list logo
