Sat Oct 27 01:02:10 CEST 2001
That is a good idea. However, in this case I'm anticipating the need to do
pattern matching on multiple fields, and being able to retrieve records in
a single chunk is quite nice. Also, each field would require extra storage
for the "fieldname", no?
Interestingly, records do support the concept of "undefined" ...
--On Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:09 AM +0200 Håkan Stenholm
> If the table is truely spares you could allways enter each field as a
> single database element and use the original 'table key + fieldname' as
> the key for this 'single field' database. This would avoid the need to
> use any kind of 'nil' value alltogether.
voice/fax : +1 510 527 5437
text page :
More information about the erlang-questions