Re: design question
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:51:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1220669517.334100@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
>
> Query it. I have to find objects fast based on the field data (=, >, <,
> between, like)
>
>
>
> No XML needed.
>
>
> A stores all as string, no problem.
> For B a new column will be there numeric(x,y) with y >= 3.
> But for 99 % of the objects 2 decimal places will be ok.
>
>
> So you would prefer A?
> What about the many null columns in this approach?
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:51:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1220669517.334100@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
Chris Seidel wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>> "Best" depends on what you are going to do with it other than store >> it.
>
> Query it. I have to find objects fast based on the field data (=, >, <,
> between, like)
>
>
>> "Best" depends on whether you require it reconstituted as XML at some >> point in the future.
>
> No XML needed.
>
>> "Best" depends, to a lesser extent, on your version which you don't >> state (3 decimal places).
>
> A stores all as string, no problem.
> For B a new column will be there numeric(x,y) with y >= 3.
> But for 99 % of the objects 2 decimal places will be ok.
>
>> My preference for reasons that range from performance to reporting to >> storage to relational theory is to shred XML into its constituent >> elements storing each with its proper data type.
>
> So you would prefer A?
> What about the many null columns in this approach?
Most things have NULL columns ... what's the issue?
If you don't store numbers as numbers you can not do math. If you do not store dates as dates you can not do date math. Storing everything as strings made sense on mainframes 20 years ago. It has no place in a modern RDBMS.
-- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.orgReceived on Fri Sep 05 2008 - 21:51:58 CDT