Talk:Cardinality (SQL statements)
Shouldn't this article point to Cardinality, somehow? --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Cardinality in math
Shouldn't this article point to Cardinality, somehow?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
SQL
Cardinality is not peculiar to SQL. GregorB (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Input from DerekAsirvadem
I removed the following paragraphs from the 05:42, 29 January 2009 version of the article, as the notes are more appropriate on the discussion page. The notes were added by DerekAsirvadem. Currently, I don't have an opinion about the notes. But let's discuss them.
1 There is no such thing as "normal" cardinality. In order for such a concept to exist, there must be some pre-existing measure (there is not). Cardinality is a relative term, relative to the object: if the table has a million rows, and there are close to a milliion values, the column has high cardinality; if the values are few, the column has low cardinality. There is no measure outside the table against which "normal" can be determined.
2 The highest level of cardinality is uniqueness: one unique value per row. That may well be a range of more than one million values.
3 The definiions are adequate but the examples are poor.
Troels Arvin (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Low cardinality and use of Index.
I am using SAP and one mandatory field in most of the tables that is MANDT. This is taken a s primary key or a part or a secondary index key and becomes a pre included field in all the queries. Even if an ABAPER does not write it so, till it comes as a result of translation by SAP. Typically a production system does not have many client or rather say a few clients only. So this is a very low cardianlity column in most of the table consisting millions of rows...
There is also a rule which says that the indexing a column of low cardinality type to be avoided.. and hence there is the confusion.
What is correct? Indexing or not in a low cardianlity column?
59.160.30.29 (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Soumen(http://soumen.wordpress.com)
- OK, this is not what talk pages are for, but here it is anyway... Indexing a column of low cardinality makes sense when:
- using bitmap indexes
- the column in question is a part of a composite index. GregorB (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.