Re: An interesting database question
Re: An interesting database question
- Subject: Re: An interesting database question
- From: Deirdre Saoirse Moen <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
> At 5:16 PM -0500 4/7/04, John Spicer wrote:
> >We will have a database (accessed with webobjects, of course!) that
> >will have accounts in it that information is written into.
> >
> >We will also have N patients (N being an unknown number).
> >
> >All the databases I've seen would do this as one table (account)
> >with some way of identifying which row belongs to which patient.
Well, it's usual to have a many-to-many join if many patients can see many
people. That's not difficult to do in WO (once you get the hang of it,
which can take some forehead-flattening exercises <g>).
> >It has been proposed that instead of one accounting table, we have N
> >tables, one for each patient.
What problem are you trying to solve by this approach?
It seems to be one that would be prone to more problems than it solves.
For example, what if you want to add a column to the patient tables? You
risk having versions of the table be out of syc.
> >The question I guess is in three parts:
In short, I don't see *ANY* good reason to map your data that way.
--
_Deirdre http://deirdre.net
"Ideally pacing should look like the stock market for the year 1999, up
and up and up, but with lots of little dips downwards...."
-- Wen Spencer on plotting a novel
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.