Apologies, my mail is slow today, did not notice this thread had progressed
significantly before I posted - please ignore previous.
I'm with Igor though, the multi-table layout you now have is even less convenient than the matrix - It's equally dispersed data only
now you have to join 3 tables for the result. Any chance you could share with us the exact thing you are trying to store and the
exact resulting knowledge you wish to deduce from the stored data? Maybe we can come up with more helpful suggestions (as opposed
to just looking puzzled!).
Cheers,
Ryan
On 2013/12/05 20:54, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 PM, Hayden Livingston wrote:
Yes, are moving our sparse matrix to different tables:
Id | RelationalIdentifier | ColA
1 a X
2 b A
Id | RelationalIdentifier | ColB
1 a Y
2 b B
Id | RelationalIdentifier | ColC
1 a Z
2 b C
Why? Personally, I'd have one table: either
Id, RelationalIdentifier, ColA, ColB, ColC
1, a, X, Y, Z
2, b, A, B, C
or
Id, RelationalIdentifier, Col, Value
1, a, ColA, X
1, a, ColB, Y
1, a, ColC, Z
2, b, ColA, A
2, b, ColB, B
2, b, ColC, C
depending on how open-ended the list of columns is. It's also not clear what the purpose of Id and RelationalIdentifier is; they
appear duplicative of each other.
How can I adapt your query to this new table schema?
select RelationalIdentifier, ColA, ColB, ColC
from TableA join TableB using (RelationalIdentifier) join TableC using
(RelationalIdentifier);
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
