So you'd recommend just widening the table, then? When does it get too complex (or too wide)?
Thanks,
Jason
Sam Tregar wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Jason Purdy wrote:
So instead of widening the "people" table to support these fields (and having to alter the table every time), I'm thinking of developing a datapoint type of system, where you'd have one table of datapoints:
This is a bad idea, but it's also a very common one. It basically treats a relational database as a glorified hash, storing sets of completely denormalized key-value pairs in giant tables. Sometimes that's really what you need, but I suspect that your situation isn't that extreme.
-sam
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
