Re: 23,000 Tables?

On Nov 9, 11:43 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> cd2448 wrote:
> > Mark D Powell wrote:
> >> [snip].
>
> >> While 23,000 tables is a large number the fact whether this is good or
> >> bad depends on how it was determined that 23K tables should exist. The
> >> SAP product has more tables than what you list.
>
> >> If the tables represent unique entities and nor just copies of the same
> >> entity dedicated to a specific part of the business such as having a
> >> part_master table for each plant instead of just having one part_master
> >> table with a plant column so that one part_master can handle any number
> >> of plants.
>
> >> Also there is no point in picking up your current application and
> >> creating a table for every file that exists and just convering the
> >> existing code to programs that run on the new platform. You are
> >> spending a lot of money just to port your current set of problems
> >> rather than develop a new system to meet your business needs going
> >> forward. In other words these 23k tables should represent the business
> >> data in a fully relational design done from scratch. Otherwise it
> >> would probably be cheaper to stay on the current system.
>
> >> We have several table with more than 100 columns so 50 isn't that manny
> >> so long as each column is truely an attribute of the entity that the
> >> table represents.
>
> >> HTH -- Mark D Powell CPIM, CIRM, OCP --
>
> > Thanks Mark,
>
> > we are migrating a report system from the mainframe - each table
> > represents one report type, with the columns representing meta-data of
> > the reports themselves. each report has its own set of columns,
> > although some reports coincidentally share the same set of columns,
> > it's not set in stone going forward. my concern is that managing 23000
> > tables could be a nightmare - but i am actually not sure why! all
> > efforts to consolidate more than one report into the same table
> > eventually brings us to a situation where a table has 40-50 fields, but
> > a particular report can have max 16 (limitation of old system) - so
> > lots of NULLs - hence my question what is best.
>
> > We don't have the option to normalize our database as the new system
> > works with a flat data model and cannot adapt to different model.
>
> > Thanks for your feedback! Chris.Sounds like someone needs to take a refresher course in database
> basics with an eye on normalization.
>
> 23,000 table is outrageous and I'll stick my neck out and say that
> I am not all that impressed with SAP's design either.
>
> If you are moving from mainframe to Oracle get someone that understands
> the concepts and architecture of Oracle (really really well as they
> will have to stand up to a room full of dinosaurs).
>
> To recreate something archaic in a new product is roughly equivalent
> to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
>
> If you need a reference to a good consultant in your area contact me
> off-line.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

>> I'll stick my neck out and say that

I am not all that impressed with SAP's design either. <<

No disagreement with you there.

HTH -- Mark D Powell -- Received on Fri Nov 10 2006 - 10:00:56 CST