> I asked the Presenter of the "Database Design Fundamentals"
> presentation at MAX last week, and she replied the both
> methods are acceptable and equal in regards to performance in
> any DBMS system she was familiar with. So, it is just a
> choice of style on which you prefer.
There is one
I think Keith answered your questions about my example as good or better then I
could. His example is a concrete real world example, where as mine was mostly
a pseudo code concept of an example.
I would just add one thing to try and clarify something that may be confusing
at first. There are
Roberto Perez wrote:
> At 12:38 PM 11/11/04, Ian Skinner wrote:
>
>>I don't know how unique the url's are in your data, but if any of them
>>are repeated you would probably want an "URL" table.
>
> Actually, that is correct. Some URL's may be good for more than 1 word. I
> was just thinking of
Part of the database. I'm not sure where you do it in Access, if
you're sticking with that.
cheers,
barneyb
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:09:40 -0500, Roberto Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:25 PM 11/11/04, Deanna Schneider wrote:
>
> > And, if you
> >index on the foreign key, the database w
At 01:25 PM 11/11/04, Deanna Schneider wrote:
> And, if you
>index on the foreign key, the database will be able to retrieve the related
>records without doing a full table scan.
Thanks for the answer. So, the indexing of the foreign key (also mentioned
by Keith) is something I would do intern
At 12:38 PM 11/11/04, Ian Skinner wrote:
> I don't know how unique the url's are in your data, but if any of them
> are repeated you would probably want an "URL" table.
Actually, that is correct. Some URL's may be good for more than 1 word. I
was just thinking of updating them manually one by
Roberto Perez wrote:
> At 02:11 PM 11/11/04, Jonathan Bigelow wrote:
>
>
>> Building relational databases is a best practice [snipped]
>>
>>Table One would look like:
>>ID | Word
>>
>>Table Two would look like:
>>ID | WordID | URL
>>
>>You'd then write a sql statement like:
>>select words_tb.word
Your biggest potential problem is your use of Access, which is a
single-user DB. Switch to something else more capable.
I'd also advise you to normalise them by splitting it into two tables.
You lose nothing by doing so, and gain a lot of flexiblity. Lookups will
be lightening-fast as long as the
Just to add some complexity to this and really throw you for a loop, there is a
small chance you may want three tables. This would be desirable if multiple
words use the same url. I don't know how unique the url's are in your data,
but if any of them are repeated you would probably want an "UR
At 02:44 PM 11/11/04, Dave Watts wrote:
>If you don't use declarative
>referential integrity to enforce relationships between your records, your
>database becomes vulnerable to any mistakes within application code that
>might change one side of a relationship without appropriately changing the
>ot
Roberto Perez wrote:
>
> - the two ID fields should be autonumber, right?
That is probanly the easiest, but not an absolute requirement.
> - the relation should be between the "ID" field of the first table and the
> "WordID" field of the second table, right?
Yes.
> Just a thought: I underst
> Just a thought: I understand how relations between fields are
> useful in Access when you use Access exclusively to enter or
> search for data (e.g., through an Access form). However, if
> you are accessing data only via SQL statements with CFML, do
> the tables still need to be linked (relat
>>select words_tb.word, links_tb.url
>>from words_tb, links_tb
>>where links_tb.wordid = words_tb.id
>>You'd get all the results you're looking for in a single query.
Exact, althought I'd rather use a LEFT JOIN here to make sure I also get words
with no URL.
--
_
At 02:11 PM 11/11/04, Jonathan Bigelow wrote:
> Building relational databases is a best practice [snipped]
>
>Table One would look like:
>ID | Word
>
>Table Two would look like:
>ID | WordID | URL
>
>You'd then write a sql statement like:
>select words_tb.word, links_tb.url
>from words_tb, links_
Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:38 PM
Subject: Pros and cons of separate tables
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to know your opinion on best practices regarding the use of
> separate tables/separate queries. Here's my situation:
&
Hi Roberto,
Your main drawback here is going to be the use of Access, not the additional
time required to return the results. A database server (MS SQL, MySQL, etc.)
would improve your reponse time, but if you don't have hundreds or thousands of
people hitting your application, Access should b
Hi everyone,
I'd like to know your opinion on best practices regarding the use of
separate tables/separate queries. Here's my situation:
- I'm currently working on an online dictionary with CFML and an Access
database. The dictionary is contained in 1 table called "words_tb". For
each word/ent
17 matches
Mail list logo
