PM, Jay A. Kreibich wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:13:31AM -0400, mark m scratched on the wall:
> > O.K. I think I am starting to get the idea. It is just so foreign for
> me
> > to organize things this way. A master work history table for all cases
> > almost seems c
the way I described has always
made it easy for me to figure things out when there was a problem.
I will give this a try.
Thanks very much for all the help.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> mark m wrote:
> > Thanks very much!! It also occurred to me that I could h
have n workhist tables. Is it
better to have only 1 and use a foriegn key like you describe to link work
history records with a given case?? Is the
rule generally to minimize the number of tables??
Mark
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> mark m wrote:
> > I
I'm very new to database programming so this question is pretty basic
I have data that is currently organized as follows:
Each case has several fields that contain only one value. There are several
fields that have a pipe-delimited string
that represents a work history. Each work history it
I am interested in using SQLite for my business management program which is
currently using text files to store all data. I have Windows XP and 3 PC's
access my data files through a shared drive (Windows file sharing).
I have heard problems with SQLite and NFS but I have no idea if a standard
Win
5 matches
Mail list logo