When you get to searching for different combinations of parts, the advantages of joining become even more apparent
Problem is, that is much less efficient query. EAVs are relatively terrible on performance, requiring index/table scans aplenty, unless the RDBMS supports partitioning, which effectively turns it into a bunch of small tables.
And in terms of the e-mail example, it's much easier to, say, enforce a UNIQUE constraint over a single column.
Yes, that is simpler. But, per the example, why enforce uniqueness on primary and secondary addresses? That would preclude the use of a friend or relative as a backup.
Because they are attributes of a particular entity, they should each have their own column. Making two things like that unique, is not an intrinsic data rule, it is some form of business rule. A business rule should not redesign the data model to make it easier to enforce, that will only lead to problems upon problems later on. In this particular case, the rule can be enforced via a MATERIALIZED or INDEXED VIEW with a UNIQUE INDEX. (A TRIGGER could be used, but that'd be hiding code and, likely, terribly inefficient.)
In reply to Re^5: In base 1, the number after 0 is:
by chacham
in thread In base 1, the number after 0 is:
by chacham
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |