Re: DB design issue
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:03:23 GMT
Message-ID: <LPm7h.21324$cz.324775_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Hell no! I suggest you ignore Neo. He's one of the resident cranks on
>>the newsgroup.
>>
>>The idea you propose is one most neophytes consider. Basically, you are
>>just re-inventing the system catalog while giving up all the integrity
>>function of the dbms.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:03:23 GMT
Message-ID: <LPm7h.21324$cz.324775_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
LC wrote:
> Bob Badour ha scritto: >
>>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.
> > I understand, so could you suggest me a better appropriate line of > design?
Based on such an obviously incomplete requirements specification? No, that would require malpractice.
Anyone who gives detailed design recommendations on such scant information is a self-aggrandizing ignorant.
You are struggling with complex types and with SQL's abject failure to provide any support for them whatsoever. Any design you come up with for SQL will be a hack or a kludge. Received on Fri Nov 17 2006 - 19:03:23 CET