Thomas Beale wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you consider a faster underlying database. It is almost certainly the >
>slow part of your system. But I agree this is a problem in health, and I expect to >
>have to think a bit harder to deal properly with it in the future, especially the >
>soundalike problem.
>
I was also going to mention that we almost always have to de-normalize
SQL databases to perform optimally and quite frequently have to build
special tables with completely redundant information just to do things
quickly. While everyone seems to think SQL is the be-all end-all, my
practical experience over 10 years dealing with them has proven
otherwise. If you keep things simple, everything works fine. As soon as
real world complexity intrudes, things get nasty quickly. Why do you
think there is a multi-billion dollar industry in things like
wharehouse's and datamarts?
