> > The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one > table just like the .csv file or should I create several smaller tables > that group similar parameters? I'm not sure what would normally be > done. I think the database is normalized properly in either case. > > For SQLite, except in exceptional cases such as huge (multi terabyte) > databases or slow media, it is more efficient to have one big table > rather than several smaller tables.
Good to know. Since this is a small, low volume database I'm more concerned with organizational clarity and correctness than efficiency. > > At a first glance, when I see two tables with identical column > definitions, I tend to feel that they should be merged into one table > with one additional column. That was my gut feeling. I could combine even further by using just 4 columns, but I thought the code might be less complicated by keeping them separate: ID Frequency (either HF or LF) VName (Offset, v10...V200) MeasuredVoltage (actual recorded value) Thanks for your reply, Simon. -Bill CONFIDENTIALITY, EXPORT CONTROL AND DISCLAIMER NOTE:This e-mail and any attachments are solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. Any disclosure, use or distribution of the information contained herein is prohibited. In the event this e-mail contains technical data within the definition of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations or Export Administration Regulations, it is subject to the export control laws of the U.S.Government. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses as L-3 does not accept any liability associated with the transmission of this e-mail. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete this message and any attachments. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
