Re: Database naming convention (yet another post of it, but a bit different)
From: Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_dev.null>
Date: 10 Oct 2002 07:29:05 -0500
Message-ID: <Xns92A342D6BDDC5pingottpingottbah_at_209.189.89.243>
>
> Slightly OT but...
> Are 1 row tables a good idea for storing settings? I usually set
> up the following table(s) to store settings in a database:
Date: 10 Oct 2002 07:29:05 -0500
Message-ID: <Xns92A342D6BDDC5pingottpingottbah_at_209.189.89.243>
"stu" <smcgouga_at_nospam.co.uk> wrote in news:ao3ep1$4rd$2$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk:
>>Especially when it comes to cases where >> we have a table with one row.
>
> Slightly OT but...
> Are 1 row tables a good idea for storing settings? I usually set
> up the following table(s) to store settings in a database:
Stu,
For sys_config values, I don't mind doing an ALTER TABLE. Especially if the underlying stored procedure that the front-end calls issues a 'select *' and binds at stored procedure compile time.
No front-end is needed in order to install config data.
-- Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering http://www.hpdbe.comReceived on Thu Oct 10 2002 - 14:29:05 CEST