Re: NextNumbers Tables

From: stu <>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:45:06 -0000
Message-ID: <b2b5sp$8p8$1$>

"Alan Gutierrez" <> wrote in message news:Es82a.25941$
> stu wrote:

> > Thanks for that Alan.
> > Unfortunately I only have DB2 5.1 (AS/400).
> Try using the two part: insert 0, update select max + 1. It works on
> PostgreSQL, make sure it works on DB2.

Will look into that.

> > To be honest I could not give a monkeys if all my tables are fully
> > normalised :-). If they do their job and it makes developing easier (=
> > faster = less cost) the customer is happy and that is my job. So from
> > respect would it be better to use surrogate keys as primary keys?
> Don't be so lazy. This is a design decision. Either you develop an
> understanding of normalization, and make educated decisions about
> when to denormalize, or hire someone to design your database for you.

I actually dont agree with what I posted! It is the view my boss wants me to have. His views are starting to change how I think about DB projects.

> > No offence intended. It has just been drummed into me that it is
better to
> > get something working sooner rather than working on all the theory, and
> > have seen this in practice: ppl who sit + wonder about all the theory
> > to take far longer to deliver projects if at all. I like looking at
this NG
> > to see if I can take anything to help me be a better designer but I
like to
> > KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)!
> You are not listening Stu. Your attitude needs some adjusting. You don't
> seem to be too comfortable with critical thinking. I say this
> because for two reasons. First, you are hostile towards theory and
> design. Second, when presented with new information you continue to
> ask the same question.

Im not hostile towards design. Look at some of my other posts. "ppl who sit + wonder about all the theory tend to take far longer to deliver" was refering to myself when i started working after uni! But im being forced to make design choices faster than i think i should make them.

Sorry if im persistant, I just get frustrated because my mork mates all think like my previous post. And I want really good reasons to stop them from making crap design choices.

> I don't know where you studied, but in the real world, when a software
> system is given to people who don't understand the langauge,
> platform, or basic computer science principles, that project fails.

Well this company has been doing that for years! And have been reasonably sucessfull.

> Planing and goal-setting are basic principles of success, whether
> you are building software or a sandwich. Just because some people
> are too insecure to implement, it does not follow that mindful
> software development is an effete princple from the ivory tower.
> To experienced database developers, to question the whether a relational
> database should be normalized is like questioning whether a boat
> should be water-tight. If a relational database is not normalized,
> you do not have a relational database. Use a spreadsheet.
> As far as your admonisment to be stupid and simple I will now offer the
> obligitory Einstien quote "Everything should be as simple as
> possible, but no simpler." The point being that the complexity of
> the problem will express itself in one form or another. If your
> database schema is simplistic, your queries are going to be
> extreamely complex.

Point sinking in!

> You many have encountered some of the methodologies that were designed
> to keep the hourly-rate consultants in new BMWs. If this is the
> case, your reaction is understandable. No one here is advocating Big
> Upfront Design. These principles are second nature once understood.
> They produce better software faster.

BMWs: I wish! I think the company is trying to stay floating and is scared to modernise its thoughts.
> Please don't top post.

Sorry I was getting better at that. I just forget sometimes.

Really did not mean to cause offence Alan, and any others.

> --
> Alan Gutierrez -
Received on Tue Feb 11 2003 - 16:45:06 CET

Original text of this message