If I were fortune, which I'm not B should enjoy A's happy lot And A should die in misery (that is, assuming I am B)
-- Larry ________________________________ From: Bernard Lis <[email protected]> To: RBASE-L Mailing List <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 9:49:56 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Database design question See how the fates their gifts allot For A is happy...... B is not Yet B is worthy, I dare say, Of more prosperity than A Is B more worthy? I should say He's worth a great deal more than A. ----- Original Message ----- >From: [email protected] >To: RBASE-L Mailing List >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:52 AM >Subject: [RBASE-L] - Database design question > > >I would like some feedback or thoughts about a database design scenario. > >I currently have two databases, both used in a manufacturing production floor >environment. > >I had originally made two separate databases as they were un-related >operationally >and thus reduced the chance that if one database went "down", it would not >effect the other. >Being a production system, effecting many people, jobs, operations, etc., >it >is imperative >that down time does not happen or at least is kept to a bare minimum. > >Both these databases see fairly high volume of user access. Both writing >and >retrieving data. > >However, Database "B" now needs to obtain and write information to a table >in >Database "A". >It will do so frequently, many times per hour by several operations at >random >times. So in > >essence, the two databases will be "connected" 100% of the time. > >So the question is... do I now merge both databases into one or keep them >separate and use >an ODBC connection between "A" and "B". Since "B" now needs data from >"A", >the original >purpose of being separate is now gone.... I.E. If "A" goes down, so will >"B". > >I ask this as I assume that an ODBC connection is not as efficient as a >direct database access. >Does not an ODBC connection have to call up a session of RBASE as well, >even >if both databases >are in RBASE? > >What are thoughts on keeping all the data in one DB versus the two? >(Database size will >not be an issue in this case) > >Thank you, > >-Bob > > > >
