comanage-dev - [comanage-dev] CO-94 Demographics vs data model
Subject: COmanage Developers List
List archive
- From: Benn Oshrin <>
- To: comanage-dev <>
- Subject: [comanage-dev] CO-94 Demographics vs data model
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:37:21 -0500
I think we'll probably want to discuss this on tomorrow's call, but here's a writeup of the options that have been proposed thus far:
[1] VARCHAR
This was my original proposal. Basically, each option gets a character representation, and each elected value gets encoded in the VARCHAR. For example, "race" has 5 possible values and so would be a VARCHAR(5). A person who identified as "asian" and "black" might be represented as "AB".
[2] INTEGER
Similar to VARCHAR, but using binary logic. Thus "asian" and "black" might be represented as 1|4 = 5.
[3] WIDE TABLE
Add one column per possible value. Thus
INSERT INTO cm_demographics (co_person_id, race_asian, race_black)
VALUES (123, true, true);
[4] MANY-TO-MANY
Instead of having one table, we have one table per demographic type. Thus
INSERT INTO cm_demographics_race (co_person_id, value)
VALUES (123, 'asian');
INSERT INTO cm_demographics_race (co_person_id, value)
VALUES (123, 'black');
In both cases [1] and [2], the model translates between the encoding and the view representation.
Note the cm_demographics wiki page is currently a hybrid of [1] and [2]. We'll need to fix that once we decide on a path.
Any other proposals to throw out there before we decide?
-Benn-
- [comanage-dev] CO-94 Demographics vs data model, Benn Oshrin, 11/22/2011
- Re: [comanage-dev] CO-94 Demographics vs data model, Scott Koranda, 11/23/2011
- Message not available
- Re: [comanage-dev] CO-94 Demographics vs data model, Benn Oshrin, 11/24/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.