Re: Storing Integers As Character Strings

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2005 03:17:13 -0800, gibsong4077_at_yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >I'm revisiting a principle I was taught 15 odd years ago and
wondering
> >if it is still current - I've tried trawling through the ISO
standards
> >and either its not defined as a standard or my searching wasn't good
> >enough! (probably the latter).
> >
> >Basically, I'm putting together a list of standards on data
labelling
> >conventions for column names etc (based on the ISO ones) for the
> >developers where I work and I've come up with a bit of a dilemma and
> >would like some thoughts and guidance.
>
> There was some recent mention in comp.databases of ISO 11179. A
> link that was posted was
> <http://www.dbazine.com/gulutzan5.shtml>
> I have not read it.
>

I did read that one and it was useful but thanks for the link anyway.

> >I was taught many years ago to store house numbers, telephone
numbers
> >etc as charcter strings i.e. varchar, varchar2, char etc, reason
being
> >that the operations that would be carried out on these attributes
would
> >be textual in nature i.e. you might concat house number to street
name
> >but you're hardly likely to do mathematical functions on house
numbers
> >(though I did once use a modulo function on house numbers in a
> >marketing campaign to get 1/2 the houses in a street sent one mailer
> >and the other 1/2 another....but I digress).
>
> To continue the digression, what would you do about my street
> address? My "house number" is 1313 1/2. There are a number of
> addresses with 1/2 in them in the downtown where I live.

It's one of the few joys of living in the UK, that we're all entitled to live in a 'whole house' and don't have to halve them.

I guess I would have had to alter the 1/2 0.5 to an order them numerically and create an incremental key next to them and done the modulo off that...thank God I don't do work for the marketing Dept anymore :)

> >I would be interested in being pointed towards the 'current'
thinking
> >and if what I was instructed way back then is still relevant or if I
> >was totally misguided....
>
> <facetious>
> It is still relevant, and you were totally misguided. <S> After
> all, you are better than ever, right?
> </>

Different not better is the way I like to think of my progress.

> Yes, it is still relevant.
>

Good to know

> >Thanks for all your help in anticipation, your feedback is always
> >valued and taken on board.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko

thanks guys for that, I'll definitely be getting a copy of that book. Received on Wed Mar 30 2005 - 11:44:56 CEST