Such culture amongst R:Basers,
Anyone else know the rest to this?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Lustig
To: RBASE-L Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:48 AM
Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Database design question
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I had originally made two separate databases as they were un-related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
