As Albert Berry noted, there is no need to have only one note table in a database. I think I would prefer not to have only one - except where only one type of note is being stored, of course.
In my case, I have notes for comments on artists and tracks and items and people (writers, publishers, musicians, labels, etc) which all have separate note tables. This is so that if there is a problem, hopefully, only one table needs repairing. That said, touch wood, I've never had a problem but there's always a first time... Regards, Alastair. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fogelson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Note Fields > A while back I had asked about Text vs. Note fields. > > A few responses indicated that they keep all "note"s in a separate table. > Evidently problems with broken pointers. > > I assume you design your DBs with a table for ALL notes. And all the other > tables contain Note_ID fields where appropriate, that point to that note in > the note table. Then use a view to read a row including the note. > > Are these assumptions correct? > > Could someone elaborate on this design and problems with broken pointers. > How is this design strategy easier to fix broken pointers? > > Thanks > > Steve Fogelson > Internet Commerce Solutions >
