Thanks for the feedback Mike and Albert, I tend to agree with Mike; the simplicity of one table is certainly appealing. I have been moving in that direction lately and I keep thinking I am doing something that I am not supposed to do, but so far...no problems.
Javier Javier Valencia, PE 913-829-0888 Office 913-915-3137 Cell 913-649-2904 Fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Byerley Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:48 PM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: One table vs. two tables. Javier, When I changed my old internal system to the 7.x and later, one of the things I changed in Accts Payable was droping the Master/Detail relationship to a single table with TransID as the PK. It has caused me zero difficulty and I never have to approach the data from the Master/Detail when doing reports. I think it is simpler. On 16/12/2010 12:40 PM, Javier Valencia wrote: > > I have an application where an equipment evaluation is generated > periodically for app. 700 pieces of equipment. I can set up the data > structure as on or two tables. > > One table approach: > > Table Evaluation > > EvalID > > EvalDesc > > EvalDate > > Other data columns > > ======================== > > Two table approach: > > Table EvaluationDesc > > EvalID > > EvalDesc > > EvalDate > > EvaluationData > > EvalID > > Other data columns > > ======================== > > The two table approach does conform to the "no duplication of data" > principle but it requires a two table form and reports would need to use > either a view or a sub-report and more maintenance. The one table approach > does duplicate data, but maintenance is much simpler; i.e. one table forms > and reports, backups, data transfer. > > I am inclined to go with the one table approach as the increase in storage > (no longer an issue) is more than offset by the additional effort needed > to work with two tables. Any thoughts? > >
