On 2/25/2015 9:16 AM, russ lyttle wrote: > To eliminate the need to reference a table would require combining 300 > tables into one table.
Yes. > A user editing entries for one space could crash > the whole system. I don't see how this follows. > That's basically what happened aboard the Yorktown in > 1997. A cook trying to enter an item into the lunch menu killed the > engines on the ship. Did the software store engine configuration and menu in the same table? Did the software need to run statements joining engine configuration tables with lunch menu tables, thus necessitating putting them into the same database? How is scattering essentially the same data across 300 different tables is expected to help prevent a similar mishap? > It's beginning to look like the 'b' table should be broken into a > separate db and the 'a' table have indicators as to which table in b.db > to use. What failure mode do you envision that would be avoided by this design? -- Igor Tandetnik
