Re: DBF to SQL Server 2000 Dilemma
From: Alan <alan_at_erols.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:19 -0500
Message-ID: <bnpc64$13ahgk$1_at_ID-114862.news.uni-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:19 -0500
Message-ID: <bnpc64$13ahgk$1_at_ID-114862.news.uni-berlin.de>
It's a good idea if the realtionships are semantically correct, otherwise, it's a bad idea. Size and number have nothing to do with it.
"Tim Payne" <timnancy2000_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15397ace.0310291333.6a05209a_at_posting.google.com...
> I am porting a DBF-based data model to SQL Server 2000. The data
> model is a (one) master table with 37 detail tables. Is this a good
> idea to have one table with 37 relationships (referential integrity)
> to it? Has anyone seen such a design in production on SQL Server?
> The DBF size is nearly 1 gig. On SQL Server 2000, the size is nearly
> 2 gig. The master table has 80,000 rows. Five detail tables have a
> million plus.
Received on Wed Oct 29 2003 - 22:41:19 CET