Re: Are one row, one column tables "acceptable"?

From: Thomas T <T_at_T>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:32:19 -0400
Message-ID: <3e933fe2$1@rutgers.edu>

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:3e9094b9$0$21991$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:3E8FCE58.DA81CCE1_at_telusplanet.net...
> > Thomas T wrote:
> >
> > > How acceptable are one row, one column tables? I've heard of people
> storing
> > > multiple system variables in two-column, multi-row tables, with column
> names
> > > such as "parameter_name" and "parameter_value". But is using a one
> row/one
> > > column table common? Or is it a way that works, but of bad design
(like
> > > creating multiple public rollback segments in the System tablespace)?
> >
> > A 1-row, 1-column table is not a bad thing. It tends to look silly, and
> many
> > purists will argue against it. But, remember the most famous table of
all
> > "DUAL"!

>
> I won't argue against it, it depends on the design. However if bringing
dual
> into the conversation be aware of the following (in a play area not a
> production system that wuld be silly)

>

> sqlplus /nolog
> shutdown
> startup nomount
> select * from dual;

>
>
>

> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> *****************************************
> Please include version and platform
> and SQL where applicable
> It makes life easier and increases the
> likelihood of a good answer
> ******************************************

Niall, what exactly happens with that statement? From seeing it, it looks like it would enter an infinite loop... but why the startup nomount? Does the database try to destroy itself? I can't bring myself to try that on my test server!

The situation does parallel itself nicely to my question, however. I could see myself forgetting, and typing "select * from myOneRowTable"!

-Thomas Received on Tue Apr 08 2003 - 16:32:19 CDT