Table structure?

[Joakim Schramm]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: valentina-bounces at lists.macserve.net 
> [mailto:valentina-bounces at lists.macserve.net] On Behalf Of 
> Ruslan Zasukhin
> Sent: 01 May 2006 20:49
> To: valentina at lists.macserve.net
> Subject: Re: Table structure?
> 
> On 5/1/06 9:17 PM, "Joakim Schramm" <joakim at astrocalc.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Yes - 207,391 pairs will go into BinaryLink.
> >> 
> >> I can say minimal size current will be 24, avg 36 bytes per pair.
> >> 
> >> So in your case expected size of Binary Link should be 7.46 Mb.
> > 
> > But this is a bit strange as it's much more then if I 
> simply keep my 
> > Primary key. Well I will look at it again.
> 
> No, for NORMAL case of third M:M table - NO.
> And than more know IF you will use STRINGS to be keys and PTRs.
> 
All old keys are string[2 or 4] infact.

> Again, in your old db you SOMEHOW did play *without* third table.
> So that was not real M:M relationship.
> 
No it's not a real M:M, actually it's a M:1 (not 1:M) as M side is used to
return the 1 side belonging to it. Yes I know, this is strange things. But I
maybe have forgot one link when putting it in relational.

> 
> Again, when we will add optimization - specify DIRECTION of 
> link usage,
>     then blink will be 2 times less, e.g. 3.2MB.
>     in best case it will be possible compact it to 2.4Mb.
> 
> ----------
> Do you want calculate size in old case?
> 
> If yes, please remind me WHAT Key filed was in ONE-left table 
> And what PTR fields was in MANY table with 207,391 records
> 
I will have a look at it again and see how it comes about.

Joakim
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> 
> Ruslan Zasukhin
> VP Engineering and New Technology
> Paradigma Software, Inc
> 
> Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information http://www.paradigmasoft.com
> 
> [I feel the need: the need for speed]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Valentina mailing list
> Valentina at lists.macserve.net
> http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
>