Re: SQL - View with two tables?

From: Paul Dixon <antispam_at_bt.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:23:07 +0100
Message-ID: <bb4k07$si6$1@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3ED4C0DE.A4345B56_at_exxesolutions.com...
> 2. Having two tables with identical structure is a violation of every
> rule of data normalization of which I can think.
> The two tables should be merged into one with an added column indicating
> the data type of the corresponding record.
> What you are doing is never necessary and should never be done.

Daniel,

before table partitioning became available, it was very common to have multiple tables with identical structures within data warehouses. They were absolutely essential to enable batch processing to be completed in acceptable timescales.

Paul Dixon Received on Thu May 29 2003 - 04:23:07 CDT