David Pradier wrote:
Well yes, i find your system very interesting and will maybe use it as
solution for another problem we have ( :-) ), but i fail to see where
it makes use of a primary key referencing another primary key ?
As regards the issue of one primary-key referencing another, I can't
Well yes, i find your system very interesting and will maybe use it as
solution for another problem we have ( :-) ), but i fail to see where
it makes use of a primary key referencing another primary key ?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:29:40AM -0700, codeWarrior wrote:
> I dont consider this to be a
> That is perfectly valid. Only, I would argue that an actor is a person.
Oups, i really made a vocabulary mistake here.
Let me paste what i wrote some minutes earlier to Daryl :
By 'actor', I meant "somebody who does something". Lots of tables
inherits
from 'actor' in our current design, ea
> >I give a clearer example :
> >CREATE TABLE actor (
> >id_actor serial PRIMARY KEY,
> >arg1 type1,
> >arg2 type2
> >)
> >CREATE TABLE person (
> >id_person INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES actor,
> >arg3 type3,
> >arg4 type4
> >)
> >Don't you think it is a BAD design ?
> >If it isn't, well, it will
Mike Plemmons wrote:
These are great tips! I will be more specific the next time I post.
Regarding the ineffiencient query. What do you suggest as a better way? I
would rather learn proper methods than continue to use improper ones.
Just send the query directly from the application - the way y
Mike Plemmons wrote:
I am trying to run this function but the return is not correct. If I run the
select statement from the psql command line it works. My guess is that the
WHERE clause could be causing the problem. Then again, it may be how I am
using the FOR loop. The ides column is of type TEX
Mike Plemmons wrote:
I am trying to run this function but the return is not correct.
PS - next time, details of what it *did* return and why that wasn't
correct would be useful. Not needed in this case, but good practice anyway.
PPS - the subject line was pretty good, but better might have b
Mike,
> I am trying to run this function but the return is not
> correct. If I run the select statement from the psql command
> line it works. My guess is that the WHERE clause could be
> causing the problem. Then again, it may be how I am using
> the FOR loop. The ides column is of type T
