> -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Moody [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 23 October 2013 16:54
> I second Marcus's interest in finding out if there is an alternative to > denormalisation that doesn't involve the drawbacks of data redundancy / > performance degradation. I don't actually know what, if any, the performance implications are. This is beyond my level of expertise but I suppose the code will either have to create a joining statement or do the joining in Java itself so it might make little difference or even be slower doing that than creating the denormalised table/view in the first place? I'm interested in the convenience of having the option not to have to create a GeoServer specific structure in our source databases; just because there's a bit more administrative inertia in getting changes made to corporate databases. (Also, I should note that I am _assuming_ that the denormalised view would work fine, I've only actually done this with tables.) Marcus This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Geoserver-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
