On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 18:10:13 +0200,
Svenne Krap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the long run, being correct is usually better than being fast (at the
> point of the implementation), as new hardware easily solves bottlenecks
> for problems not scaling exponentially.
And it isn't even cle
I would definately say solution two.
As you point out yourself, there are only for int4s (propably even
int2s), that is 8 bytes each for the int4 (if I remeber corretly), which
equals something in the 40-50 bytes range for the row w/o index.
For 15m rows, thats not much more than 750 megabytes wi
I thank you for your answer.
The more I think about it, the more I find the second option better. Just one
precision.
All tests are always done, so I always hae all columns filled with a result.
My only trouble was about size and performance. I store only a few byte with a lot of
overhead (#a
e constrains...don't
ever erase from DB.
So... my final answer: the second option.
Best regards,
Andy.
- Original Message -
From: "Alain Reymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: [SQL] Database structure
&
Hello,
I would like an advise on the following problem :
I have a table of patients.
Each patient can make different biological assessments.
Each assessment is always decomposed into different laboratory tests.
A laboratory test is made of a test number and two values coming from analysers.
Th
