Re: Database Design
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:04:40 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <9o56uo$6br$3_at_geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
H <pencilstaple_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
: Leandro Guimaraes Faria Corsetti Dutra <leandrod_at_mac.com> wrote
:in message news:<3BA4F32B.6060901_at_mac.com>...
:> No one does it that way. Why not just adding a column?
: I would like to store this information in a database, so that
: i can
: pull the data out and run my matching algorithm. However, I want to
: make the database flexible. If i find out that age, sex, degree, and
: university is not satisfactory for making a good match I would like to
: be able to add extra fields for employees/customers to fill in. I
: want to add these fields without restructuring the entire database,
: especially since I anticipate that i will be doing this several times.
You're just restating the same argument you said in your first post. The other two posters pretty effectively point out why you are wrong. The database *is* flexible. You already *can* add extra fields to fill in -- that is the point of the ALTER TABLE statement, and the realization of decades of database research. Relational devoured the market because it allowed changing schemas, as opposed to the competition of the day which forced you to rewrite damn near everything for any change.
You are moving backwards. Please do some background reading before trying to implement your project -- you will thank yourself for the time investment in the end. Received on Mon Sep 17 2001 - 18:04:40 CEST