From owner-freebsd-vuxml@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 27 01:23:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-vuxml@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485DE16A4CE for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:23:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bast.unixathome.org (bast.unixathome.org [66.11.174.150]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C27A43D39 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:23:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from wocker (wocker.unixathome.org [192.168.0.99]) by bast.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157423D3D for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:23:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dan Langille" To: freebsd-vuxml@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:23:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <412E54E5.5382.6016DEA@localhost> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Subject: FreshPorts - VuXML tables - diagram X-BeenThere: freebsd-vuxml@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documenting security issues in VuXML List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:23:50 -0000 Here's the diagram of the tables I'm considering. This should duplicate the entire contents of the VuXML table. http://beta.freshports.org/tmp/FreshPorts-VuXML-tables.jpg The commit_log_ports_vuxml table relates each entry in the vuxml table to one or more commits and to specific ports within that commit. The actual PORTREVISION, PORTVERSION, PORTEPOCH etc, are stored in another table (commit_log_ports), which is not shown. Why another table just for vuxml? It keep the vuxml separate from the FreshPorts data. The table I would put this information it is the commit_log_ports table (which has about 138,718 rows). I expect the commit_log_ports_vuxml table to have about 1000 rows (i.e. significantly less rows). I'd consider merging the data if the number of vuxml rows started to approach 30% of commit_log_ports... but I don't see that happening. cheers -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/