On 6/22/06, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Mike Rylander wrote:
>
> >> > This is just not true. Lets take the MARC standard. Each field
> >> > has a one to many relationship with its subfields. In a relational
> >> > database this *could be* modeled with two tables.
> >> Yes, it "could". Again, this must in many cases be ruled out because
> >> of inefficiency and the sheer bulk of the tables you end up with.
> >
> >
> > I see 3 tables there: record, tag and subfield.
> >
> Did you try? And get something useful?
Yes (tried) and yes (for top-down search/retrieval). However, it lead
to enough duplication of data to support searching bottom up (which is
obviously the normal case) and didn't provide enough benefits over
targeted extraction that we dropped it.
>
> >
> >> > Again, a relational database can contain keyword indexes either
> >> > through full text indexing a column or using appropriate business
> >> > logic and/or a stored procedures to shred the information and
> >> > store the data in a table.
> >> >
> >> Again, who does it, and why not?
> >
> >
> > Evergreen, for one. :)
> >
> Where can I see it?
>
http://open-ils.org
http://demo.gapines.org/
and, if you mean the the database schema,
http://open-ils.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ILS/Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/
> B. Eversberg
>
--
Mike Rylander
mrylander_at_gmail.com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
Received on Thu Jun 22 2006 - 09:21:37 EDT