Thanks again for the responses. After reading Razzak's articles, I have come to the conclusion that by designing the DB structure with Note tables for each table that need note fields:
1) That the "Note table" doesn't really need previous and next pointers (even though it normally does have them) as this table is only referenced by the primary key from the parent table. 2) We would probably not even notice that there was a broken pointer in a "Note table". Would Autochk pick this up? I still am not sure if R:Scope would fix a broken pointer in a "Note Table". Thanks Steve -----Original Message----- From: A. Razzak Memon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Note Fields - Razzak's Reply At 11:09 AM 9/17/2003 -0500, Steve Fogelson wrote: >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? Steve, Take a look at the following two articles: From The Edge: http://www.razzak.com/fte Understanding and Using VARCHAR Data Type (07/18/2002) Finding and Fixing Broken Indexes (04/30/2002) Hope that helps! Very Best R:egards, Razzak.
