Path: news.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: "stu" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Database naming convention (yet another post of it, but a bit different) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:46:06 +0100 Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <3e55b51a.0210081559.4ac4c1f9@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coronaservice.demon.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1034239585 4973 62.49.19.224 (10 Oct 2002 08:46:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:46:25 +0000 (UTC) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: newsfeed1.easynews.com comp.databases.theory:22906 X-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:46:22 MST (news.easynews.com) >Especially when it comes to cases where > we have a table with one row. Slightly OT but... Are 1 row tables a good idea for storing settings? I usually set up the following table(s) to store settings in a database: Setting(pk) Value pi 3.14159265 maxReportSize 90 case 12 etc.... then another (sometimes I store numeric and text values in the same column) for text settings: What are the advantages / disadvantages with this structure compared to a one row table for storing settings. I realise my design is not normalised (at all!) but it seems to work well. Cheers Stu