Hi, Bruce: I too have thought that if I had a 'master' table which contained all lookup data, it would be easier to control. It could be done, but might be somewhat difficult to manage and control At the current time, I recommend a single table for each lookup. If you code the lookup names alike (LOOUP_????), and comment each one, they basically will be 'together' for viewing.
Also, look at Larry's # 3 suggestion. Could get time-consuming and tedious. Just my .02 worth. Have a great holiday ! Jim --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Bruce Chitiea <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Bruce Chitiea <[email protected]> > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Schema Design Question: Look-ups > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 1:27 PM > All: > > Look-up tables proliferate like computer cables. > Remembering my kids' > names is hard enough. > > Wondering if there's a simpler approach, balancing coding > complexity > with performance: > > Anybody have thoughts/experience regarding two approaches: > > 1) individual look-up tables - each dedicated to a specific > 'idea' > (category); > > 2) a master look-up table - all 'ideas' contained within a > category > field - look-ups being performed through where-clauses > targeting the > specific category. > > zMasterLookUpTable > zCategory - (Indexed) Where-clause target > zData - (Indexed) Data values > zSortOrder - Category-data sort order > > Just wondering. > > Appreciating all you all do for all of us, > > bruce chitiea > safesectors inc > > >
