[Tfug] Any SQL gurus out there?

[Don Freeman]

Maybe we're discussing only semantics. Are you suggesting that a lookup
table for example should not be part of the database? 


Don W. Freeman, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
Pima Association of Governments
177 N. Church Ave. #405
Tucson AZ 85701
(520) 792-1093 voice
(520) 620-6981 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: tfug-bounces at tfug.org [mailto:tfug-bounces at tfug.org] On Behalf Of
Claude Rubinson
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:11 PM
To: tfug at tfug.org
Subject: Re: [Tfug] Any SQL gurus out there?

On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Don Freeman wrote:
> In my experience most RDBMS setups have both related and unrelated 
> tables.  If its convenient to store code in a table, why not? If the 
> code is created to help maintain the data then maybe it IS related. :)

Experience != Correctness and Relational != Related.  If you've got a
standalone table in an relational database, that's indicative of a problem.
The database is incomplete, denormalized, improperly normalized, or just
plain wrong.  And that always leads to problems.

Claude

_______________________________________________
Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
Subscription Options:
http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org