Re: Three table database - period (?)

Yes, it can be a tempting idea. But there could be lots of problems in administration, performance, and security. And at the logical level, it's probably too general to meet a thorough analysis of the problem.

RDBMS products are designed for you to create a solution tailored to a problem. I think the three table idea could be useful in that context. Tailoring the solution to the problem is more sustainable in the long run. - cb

<here_at_there.com> wrote in message news:98j7cf$7g4$1_at_news.netmar.com...
> In article <3A76AF6D.70C2F781_at_axon.is>, Jens <jens_at_axon.is> writes:
> >Hi
> >
> >I have been wondering about the merits / pitfalls of the
> >following table structure:
> >
> >Entity(ID)
> >
> >EntityAttribute(EntityID, AttributeID)
> >
> >Attribute(ID, Type, EntityID, Number, String, Date, Blob,
> >....)
> >
> >This describes an entity that has some attributes linked to
> >it through the EntityAttribute table. The attribute table's
> >Type field describes which of the attribute fields is
> >actually used.
> >
> >I don't seem to need any more tables as I can describe
> >anything with these three (or can I?). I'm also concerned
> >about speed and space consumption but the flexibility this
> >seems to give me is tempting.
> >
> >You may even have a name for this 'little monster' :)
> >
> >Any thoughts?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jens
> >sorry, can't help you but it was interesting reading
>
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the
 eb -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+
 groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
> made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email
abuse_at_newsone.net Received on Wed Mar 14 2001 - 04:21:08 CET