Steve, have you ever used R:Scope in the past? I ask because I didn't really understand the role of "pointers" or the impact of broken ones until I had need to use it, ca. 1988(?). Pointers are, as far as I know, ABSOLUTELY VITAL, f/the internal maintenance of the data in the tables of a DBMS, and that means any DBMS.
However, and please don't hold it against me, I won't go into any more detail at the moment, as I'm sure my effort would be unworthy of the topic. However, I'd be happy to find some relevant and reliable info on-line and send the URL's to you. Additionally, let me add, the only time I recall having had broken pointers was when the system that was "hosting" a PACK/RELOAD/INSERT/ETC operation was powered off before the operation was complete ; I'm sure there are other scenarios wherein this can happen, as well. However, it seems to be rather a rare thing, w/for the most part, known causes. Moreover, having a good and enforced policy and process f/backups/archives mitigates the impact of such a failure. So, I wouldn't worry (much) about broken pointers, I'd recommend that you just analyze, design, and implement as you think is appropriate and around that do all your "due diligence" stuff, like backing up ... Later, Steve in Memphis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fogelson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Note Fields - Razzak's Reply > 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. >
