Re: DB design issue

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:53:22 GMT
Message-ID: <6Ol7h.21305$cz.323397@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

LC wrote:

> Neo ha scritto:
>
>

>>>... how to design the Message table and how to link a 'type ID' with either a simple type (Type table) or a composed type (Block table).
>>
>>Could you treat simple types as a composed type having one element?

>
>
> hi, thank you for your interest.
>
> well I thought simple types with different attributes, but your hint
> make me think about the following possible solution:
>
> T_SYSTEM
> Idsys
> Name
> Description
>
> T_INTERFACE (interfaces have a direction: a source and a dest system)
> Iditf
> Name
> Idsys (source)
> Idsys (dest)
> Link
> Protocol
> Description
>
> T_MESSAGE
> Idmes
> Iditf
> Name
> Identification
> Service
> Timing
> Answer
> Description
>
> T_TYPE
> Idtyp
> Name
> isNative
> Description
>
> T_FIELDSOFMESSAGE
> Idfom
> Idmsg
> Position
> Idtyp
> Name
> Size
> Unit
> Values
> Accuracy
> Resolution
> Description
>
> T_FIELDSOFTYPE
> Idfot
> Idtyp
> Position
> Idtyp
> Name
> Size
> Unit
> Values
> Accuracy
> Resolution
> Description
>
> Do you all think it could be a good design?

Hell no! I suggest you ignore Neo. He's one of the resident cranks on the newsgroup.

The idea you propose is one most neophytes consider. Basically, you are just re-inventing the system catalog while giving up all the integrity function of the dbms. Received on Fri Nov 17 2006 - 10:53:22 CST