Re: 23,000 Tables?

From: HansF <Fuzzy.Greybeard_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:56:16 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2006.11.16.14.56.14.481801@gmail.com>

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:06:21 -0800, cd2448 wrote:

>
> HansF wrote:

>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:33:42 -0800, cd2448 wrote:
>>
>> > i would love to. but we don't have  the option to normalize the tables,
>> > which would be the real best practice approach, because we must have
>> > all fields in one table for a given report. i agree that there are
>>
>> What is wrong with having normalized tables and placing views on top of
>> the tables to satisfy the reports constraints?

> Thanks Hans,
>
> This seems like something that we could do - but would we be able to
> INSERT via the views? As you can see, I am not a database design expert
> by any means, even the basics are new to me, so I appreciate any
> feedback I am getting from talking to you guys.
>
> Rgds, cd

There are updateable views. And there are 'Instead-Of' triggers, the concept of which seems design specifically for updating non-updateable views.

-- 
Hans Forbrich   (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com)   
*** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong!
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.

Received on Thu Nov 16 2006 - 08:56:16 CST