Re: Need SQL Server Temp Table equivalent (challenge!)

"Kin Ng" <kin_ng5_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d5b3f600.0307261735.798ec6e8_at_posting.google.com...
> Perhaps I can illustrate this idea with an example.
>
> A typical Product's relation design may include the product master,
> Brand, Subbrand, Brand Extension etc. What happens if we don't define
> Brand, Subbrand, Brand Extension etc but instead create a structure
> such that these kind of relationships can be "soft coded" so to speak.
> I have always felt that the relation model tend to represent what is
> current and lacks the flexibility of self-changing, sort of like the
> OS's self tuning...That was the idea of our design. Let's face it,
> the pace of change in the current business world is fast and changing
> a DB model is slow, relatively speaking.

So you don't have time to do it right, but time to instead redo it. I say BS that the business world is changing so fast that the model can't keep up. Hogwash! Mental Masturbation is more like it. (or ignorance of how to do correct data modeling) People have been doing these things for decades - BOMs, inventory systems, etc. You are not doing anything really new, just trying to make it more complex than necessary. You are creating a real mess for yourself; a very unscalable, difficult to use mess. There are ways to accomplish flexibility correctly. This is not one of them.

Jim Received on Sat Jul 26 2003 - 21:50:32 CDT