I’m going to throw my .02 in on this one.
I’m a long time DBA, and in my opinion, some things are just better left
to the database as a view (as you stated), a stored procedure, or a
table returning function. There are many many complex data operations
that will occur much faster if run natively on the database.
(Operations that require temp tables, and cubes, etc. come to mind)
At any rate, my guess is that rails would treat a view and a tables the
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Larry W.
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Rails] best way to combine results from two tables
I’ve got the farmer table down
I’m going to try an implementation that selects from both tables and
merges the results in the controller. In my application, I think I can
do this safely because there’s a limited amount of current data (per
farmer). Also going to try to create a pagination object manually on
the merged data. I’ll let you know how it turns out.
The only alternative i could think of is to merge all the data in a
single table as you suggested, possibly using updatable views to create
models for each of the subtypes, but that seems to add a lot of
On 3/8/06, Craig W. email@example.com wrote:
OK - in that case, I am definitely interested if someone takes the time
to explain because I am working on reports that need to iterate over a
lot of items in a different manner but similarly enough that I might
learn something useful.
ps…I still would have a ‘farmers’ table
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:19 -0500, Larry W. wrote:
That might have been best, but the animals are very different. lots of