Thank you.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:59:14PM +0200, Michal Kubenka wrote:
> > Actually what we need is some hierarchical base for relationship between
> > countries, cities, regions, etc.
>
> PostGIS topology
Hi Brent,
thanks for your suggestions. I think that second option can fit
our requirements, and it's similar to my first idea how to organize it.
Thank you again.
Michal Kubenka
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:22 AM, wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> One suggestion...
>
> There are two w
Actually what we need is some hierarchical base for relationship between
countries, cities, regions, etc. Main goal of the application will be
collecting data from many sources about specific cities, regions,
countries and so on, and store it in database. Let's say we will have city
Rome, we collec
Actually what we need is some hierarchical base for relationship between
countries, cities, regions, etc. Main goal of the application will be
collecting data from many sources about specific cities, regions,
countries and so on, and store it in database. Let's say we will have city
Rome, we collec
Thank's for your reply.
I think we'll go same ways as you describe - use two main tables `polygons`
and `points` and couple supporting tables which handle relationships
and additional content.
Michal K.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Andrea Peri wrote:
> >My question is how to design database
Thank you for reply.
But I'm afraid that such solution won't fit our system, because for
example there can be situation when POI belong to region. And also I think
it can cause some problems with ORM.
Michal K.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Francois Hugues
wrote:
> I think it could be better
