Re: cvs: pearweb /sql downloads.sql

"Stig S. Bakken" wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 17:12, Martin Jansen wrote: > > On 27 Jan 2002 20:31:23 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > > > >On Sun, 2002-01-27 at 10:39, Martin Jansen wrote: > > >> mj Sun Jan 27 04:39:44 2002 EDT > > >> > > >> Modified files: > > >> /pearweb/sql downloads.sql > > >> Log: > > >> * Nuke un-necessary fields. > > >> > > >> > > >> Index: pearweb/sql/downloads.sql > > >> diff -u pearweb/sql/downloads.sql:1.1 pearweb/sql/downloads.sql:1.2 > > >> --- pearweb/sql/downloads.sql:1.1 Fri Dec 21 23:41:18 2001 > > >> +++ pearweb/sql/downloads.sql Sun Jan 27 04:39:44 2002 > > >> @@ -3,8 +3,6 @@ > > >> file INTEGER NOT NULL, -- REFERENCES files(id), > > >> package INTEGER NOT NULL, -- REFERENCES packages(id), > > >> release INTEGER NOT NULL, -- REFERENCES releases(id), > > >> - author INTEGER NOT NULL, -- REFERENCES users(id), > > >> - category INTEGER NOT NULL, -- REFERENCES categories(id), > > >> dl_when DATETIME NOT NULL, > > >> dl_who VARCHAR(20), > > >> dl_host VARCHAR(100), > > > > > >Heey, please revert this patch. These are for making download stats per > > >author and category, obviously. > > > > Storing the author id with the download log is a bad idea because > > there can be multiple authors of one package and the author field > > can only take _one_ of them as it's value. > > > > I suggest we drop this field and solve the author statistics > > via some joins in the download stats. > > I was thinking about having a single row for each author, but maybe > that's overkill? How much do we want author stats? > All the people love stats. I would propose as complete as we can. Tomas V.V.Cox