Database Design and Reference Tables

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss Content Posted by Ranga Narasimhan » Database Design and Reference Tables

106 posts, Page 11 of 11

«««7 8 9 10 11

Database Design and Reference Tables

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Robert Stewart

Posted Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:11 PM

SSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 29, 2013 12:16 PM
Points: 199, Visits: 53

Sounds like the new Access engine will help the guys out that want a poor design...

http://www.pcw.co.uk/articles/print/2163161

Post #311709

Mark Storey-Smith

Posted Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:33 AM

Valued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:12 PM
Points: 50, Visits: 261

If there isn't a policy to stop 'really bad' articles being published on SQLServerCentral, there should at least be one that stops said articles appearing in the "One year ago..." section of the newsletter. Re-promoting these articles gives credence where absolutely none is due!

Post #311901

sushila

Posted Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:49 AM

SSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:44 AM
Points: 2,553, Visits: 513

For that the articles would have to be flagged in some way and/or the site-owners would have to read the comments & response posts to every single article..kinda monumental..that task...

You could always post this in the "Suggestions" forum...I know for a fact that all suggestions are considered very seriously by Steve etc..

**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!**

Post #311913

Steve Williams-275942

Posted Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:08 PM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:52 PM
Points: 1, Visits: 15

IMO having one physical table representing multiple logical tables is extremely poor design - I'm surprised a normally reputable/conservative site such as SQL Server Central would promote this idea

Having one physical table per logical lookup table has benefits as follows:

- Easier to reverse-engineer a data model from a physical database
- Improved performance as database page hits are more likely to be on discrete pages for disparate tables (tiny as little tables like these are probably cached but every little bit helps)
- Lends itself to minor divergence e.g. a specific lookup table has an extra column other than code/description pairs
- Allows tables to have names that represent their function

I've seen all 3 variants on this:

1. 1 physical table per logical table
2. 1 physical table for ALL logical tables but named views representing each logical table
3. I physical table for ALL logical tables and you just have to know how to code it

In my opinion these variants are listed above in decreasing order or desirability

Post #314803

danTheNoodleMan

Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:40 PM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:29 PM
Points: 1, Visits: 23

Generic lookup tables may seem to be good solutions at first. It leads to complexity, rigidity of design, and lack of referential integrity to name a few. Please read this article http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Advanced/lookuptablemadness/1464/#

Post #572156

James Hurburgh

Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:15 PM

Valued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:48 AM
Points: 56, Visits: 11

Glad to hear that other people thought this idea was horrible.

Post #956050

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

106 posts, Page 11 of 11

«««7 8 9 10 11

Permissions