Re: Design question

71062.1056_at_compuserve.com (--CELKO--) wrote in message news:<c0d87ec0.0305041307.69626512_at_posting.google.com>...
> >> Is there a better way? Keep in mind that I am required to use an
> RDBMS. <<
>
> Given that requirement, you are dead. A better way to handle
> documents is to use a textbase or document retrieval product.
>
> The basic idea of a relational DBMS is that you know all the
> attributes of the data model before you load the data into the schema.
> You do not "make it up" as you go along. You can kludge something
> together, but it will perform so poorily and be so large that it will
> be useless in a year.
>
The thing is that the number of attributes in not very large (unlike a text database where there are several words that need to be indexed - we are not looking for full-text search). And, the system has transactional aspects to it.

Regards,
Sandeep
> Many years ago, I had a consulting job with Southern California
> Edison. They were trying to put their Labor Law library on a database
> and had originally wanted to use DB2. The law library was contracts,
> laws, court decisions, etc. -- all documents, no records. I suggested
> a textbase that looked like Lexis or WestLaw on the front end so their
> lawyers could use it immediately. I estimated that it saved them
> $150,000 the *first* year and at least $50,000 every year thereafter.
> Get the right tool for the job.
Received on Mon May 05 2003 - 07:01:23 CEST