Re: Help with complex db design concepts
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 20:27:57 +0200
On Fri, 10 May 2002 17:01:09 GMT, Doug Swetland <swetland_at_minn.net> wrote:
>I love views, but wouldn't want to maintain hundreds of them. Again, it
>depends on the requirements. A view with a join among Resolution,
>Documents and Geo_Features would meet most of your needs for linking
>documents to features. On the other hand, a thousand tables guarantees
>you a job for life. Life of the system anyway.
Since, this is once again (?) turning into a meta data debate (which I love to read, but is becomming less interesting), may I propose to the veterans in the group (or anyone else who has strong feelings about his/her approach) to try debating for the 'other' side ;) ?
To me it seems that the meta approach offers benefits regarding data analysis, simplicity and flexibility, less initial work and leaves a lot of integrity (data, relational, transactional) undefined, while the relational approach has the benefits of tested and proven way which requires very thorough analysis and detailing with ability to 'add' simplicity afterward through views and other means.
Has anyone had experience with turning one approach into another on production databases? Did anyone run both approaches succesfully? Received on Fri May 10 2002 - 20:27:57 CEST