Typed tables
in [PgSql]
|
From: Andrew Chernow on 11 Jan 2010 15:02 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2009-11-05 at 19:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I'm planning to work on typed tables support. The idea is that you >> create a table out of a composite type (as opposed to the other way >> around, which is currently done automatically). >> >> CREATE TYPE persons_type AS (name text, bdate date); >> >> CREATE TABLE persons OF persons_type; >> >> Or the fancy version: >> >> CREATE TABLE persons OF persons_type ( PRIMARY KEY (name) ); > > And here is the first patch for that. The feature is complete as far as > I had wanted it. I would like to add ALTER TYPE support, but that can > come as a separate patch. +1 ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL conformance. For various reasons, we've internally adopted using create table for all composites and use a c-like naming convenstion of appending _t to such beasts. I'll just throw a little meat into the pack wolves....constraints....? -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Peter Eisentraut on 11 Jan 2010 17:16 On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: > ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' > (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL > conformance. I don't really understand the purpose of that. > For various reasons, we've internally adopted using create > table for all composites and use a c-like naming convenstion of > appending _t to such beasts. Yes, I have a similar convention. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Andrew Chernow on 11 Jan 2010 19:27 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: >> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' >> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL >> conformance. > > I don't really understand the purpose of that. > What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax? Why would one use create type when there is create table? Does it provide additional functionality I am unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons? -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Peter Eisentraut on 12 Jan 2010 04:28 On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: > >> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' > >> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL > >> conformance. > > > > I don't really understand the purpose of that. > > > > What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax? Why would one use create > type when there is create table? Does it provide additional functionality I am > unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons? Well, that is a very deep question. ;-) I suppose a concise answer would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and tables are for storing data on disk. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Pavel Stehule on 12 Jan 2010 04:34 2010/1/12 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net>: > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: >> >> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' >> >> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL >> >> conformance. >> > >> > I don't really understand the purpose of that. >> > >> >> What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax?  Why would one use create >> type when there is create table?  Does it provide additional functionality I am >> unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons? > > Well, that is a very deep question. ;-)  I suppose a concise answer > would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and > tables are for storing data on disk. it should help only for "small" tables. It's looks well, but it can be very slow and very memory expensive for bigger tables. I thing, we need some QUERY->cursor translation mechanism. Memory based solution (with arrays) is better than nothing, but it cannot be for all. Pavel > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [HACKERS] RADIUS authentication Next: Red-black tree for GIN |