was thinking.
> >
> > -Bill
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-
> > > boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Clemens Ladisch
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:46 AM
> > >
I'm assuming you're measuring something from each unit (I'm guessing
device?) out on the field?
Taking a quick glance at your table, I could see three tables being created
to normalize things out. You have particular units at a particular
location. That can be one table. Another table would be
> concerned with organizational clarity and correctness than efficiency
>From my personal experience, Sqlite is so bloody fast I simply side table
efficiency until it needs to be looked at. I can load 1.5 million name
address records (500 bytes each), a second table of 3 million records (same
siz
> > The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one
> table just like the .csv file or should I create several smaller tables
> that group similar parameters? I'm not sure what would normally be
> done. I think the database is normalized properly in either case.
>
> For SQLite, ex
Ladisch
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:46 AM
> > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables
> >
> > Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote:
> > > An automatic test system that I designed generates 25 da
n...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Clemens Ladisch
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables
>
> Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote:
> > An automatic test system that I designed
ite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables
>
> There is no point to grouping similar fields in different tables,
> though I would advise grouping them together in the main table as a
> simple case for clarity, but it has no other benefit. A
On 9 Oct 2014, at 3:25pm, Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST
wrote:
> The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one table just
> like the .csv file or should I create several smaller tables that group
> similar parameters? I'm not sure what would normally be done. I think the
Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote:
> An automatic test system that I designed generates 25 data elements
> for each unit tested. [...]
> should I lump everything together in one table just like the .csv file
> or should I create several smaller tables that group similar parameters?
> I'm not
There is no point to grouping similar fields in different tables, though I would advise grouping them together in the main table as
a simple case for clarity, but it has no other benefit. As long as the data is in 1NF, one table is fine. The main reason (and I
think only motivation) to have data
All,
An automatic test system that I designed generates 25 data elements for each
unit tested. We test about 50 units/day. This data is currently being stored in
a csv file. I'd like to move this over to an SQLite database.
The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one table
11 matches
Mail list logo