On Wednesday 23 April 2008 06:49:10 am Nate Lowrie wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:31 AM, johnf wrote: > > > I normally don't have two tables for a 1 to 1 relationship. Most > > > database > > > engines today allow plenty of fields and hard drive space is very > > > cheap these > > > days. > > > > That is never an excuse for poor design. I'm assuming that > > Karsten's design is correct for his application; you should never have to > > change a good design to work with your application tools. > > Agreed. Plus, if you do an O/R layer it makes things a real pain in the > butt...
What's a real pain in the butt? We change database designs all the time to meet the limits of our tools. Not that we should just blindly accept the limits of tools. And Dabo is no exception. And yes we change the way we might design something to meet the needs of Dabo. When Larry designed a 1 to 1 relationship on one our the forms Ed immediately suggested to convert it to one table (about a year ago). Why because we were having trouble with Dabo. Ed did not suggest that the design was wrong only that Dabo didn't work as expected. Don't know or recall if that problem was fixed or not. But that's not the point. Ed suggested a practical solution. Nate, tell me why you decided to use two tables instead of one? Has Dabo's limits caused you to re-think the two table solutions. I.e. Dabo can not update multi tables from datasets created from joins. And I guess there aren't many tools that can. My point is it is often better to change the design than fight the tools. And again Dabo is no exception. -- John Fabiani _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
