From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2009-11-26T02:35:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Pseudo array for Rails migration

On 22.11.2009 17:05, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
> [...]
>> RK> ?  Btw, having columns with indexes in their name is considered bad
>> RK> schema design because you either could normalize it into another 
>> table
>> RK> and join or provide more meaningful names instead of "x02" if it is 
>> used
>> RK> as a placeholder.  My 0.02EUR.
>>
>> RK> Kind regards
>>
>> First of all, I'm a noob.  I should have said that.
>>
>> Thus your solution
>> (1) Makes sense.
>> (2) Explains a lot about Ruby.
>>
>> For both I thank you.
>>
>>
>> In terms of normalizing the database, I ran some timing tests and
>> normalizing it slows me down a couple of orders of magnitude.  I'm
>> willing to live with the lack of purity for the sake of performance.
> 
> A couple orders of magnitude?   This suggests to me that your 
> normalization and/or queries are poorly done.  What is chewing up so 
> much time, and what does the normalized schema look like?  It should be 
> possible to find a solution that performs reasonably and doesn't have 20 
> repeating fields.

I second that.  Ralph, any information about the slowness?  Is it in the 
database or outside?

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/