Has done since 2000.
-----Original Message----- From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 June 2006 14:39 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: XML storage of metadata in database fields BTW SQL Server now supports XML natively, so if you store XML in the database, you can parse it a lot easier. Russ -----Original Message----- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 June 2006 13:39 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: XML storage of metadata in database fields Katz, Dov B \(IT\) wrote: > There are several approaches to solving this type of problem, imho, > and each one has costs and benefits, and I've given each of them a > "report card" (A being best, F being worst): > > 1) Xml into a field (as originally speculated) > Benefits: flexible design, structured data once retreived > Costs: useless for searching Unless your database supports functional indexes. > data not typed, (all strings) Unless your database supports schema validation. > storage bloat due to markup Not that bad if the database supports inline compression. Columns have overhead too. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:245076 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
