Re: 23,000 Tables?

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:15:02 -0800
Message-ID: <1164125702.455233@bubbleator.drizzle.com>

cd2448 wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:

>> [snip]
>>
>> On what basis MUST you have all fields in one table for a report?
>>
>> Internal business rule?
>> What reporting tool?
>> Inability to build views?
>> Desire to do something the worst possible way?
>>
>> I would help to know what is driving these statements.
>> --
>> Daniel A. Morgan
>> [snip]

>
> because of the tool that will be used to search these reports and
> ingest new reports. that tool cannot be changed, hence we can't do a
> thorough redesign of the database in a normalized way, i am looking
> into the idea of views to simulate this for the reporting software,
> that would be a good deal of configuration work but would be much
> better going forward, i appreciate that.
>
> thnx,cd

Is there any reason that this tool can't be shown a schema full of views built on relational tables in a different schema?

I know of no reporting tool that distinguishes between tables and views and most synonyms too.

BTW: You still haven't named the tool. Please do as I want to be aware of its limitation. Thanks.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

Received on Tue Nov 21 2006 - 10:15:02 CST