wood burning stoves 2.0*
The moose likes JForum and the fly likes for Rafeal: Intent of the jforum_posts_text table? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of The Java EE 7 Tutorial Volume 1 or Volume 2 this week in the Java EE forum
or jQuery UI in Action in the JavaScript forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Products » JForum
Bookmark "for Rafeal: Intent of the jforum_posts_text table?" Watch "for Rafeal: Intent of the jforum_posts_text table?" New topic
Author

for Rafeal: Intent of the jforum_posts_text table?

Migrated From Jforum.net
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2012
Posts: 17424
Most likely it was done that way because PhPBB did it that way (AFAIK, jForum's initial goal was to be a Java based PhPBB replacement/clone ).

A couple of reasons I can think of doing it this way are:

1) To eventually allow for "cross postings" of the same message to multiple forums. NNTP allows this and BB code often takes a lot of tips from this older cousin.

2) This is a pretty standard DB practice when you are mapping tables to in-memory objects. Having "load on demand" object properties can be complex and problematic. It's easier, takes less memory, and faster to have a lighter weight "summary object" that maps to all the fields in one table and a "heavier" related details object.


[originally posted on jforum.net by monroe]
Migrated From Jforum.net
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2012
Posts: 17424
Dear Rafael,

Can you please tell what the intent was to create a separate table for a post's text (jforum_posts_text). The table seems to be a one-to-one mapping with jforum_posts, so it doesnt fall under the rules of database normalization. Does it have anything to do with Search?

Thnx in Advance.

/Pankaj
[originally posted on jforum.net by pankajvermani]
Migrated From Jforum.net
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2012
Posts: 17424
Yes, monroe is completely right about item "2". Having the message text in the same table of all other information uses a lot more of system resources than splitting in two different tables. Also, sometimes a bit of "denormalization" it's good, in order to improve performance.

Rafael
[originally posted on jforum.net by Rafael Steil]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: for Rafeal: Intent of the jforum_posts_text table?