Back to the month index |
Back to the list index
|
Alexandre Rousseau (alexr@toonboom.com)
Tue, 28 Jan 1997 03:10:28 -0500
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Bryan: "[mSQL] How to browse record using HTML's <INPUT TYPE=...> tag ?"
- Previous message: Jon Martin Solaas: "[mSQL] Question about TCP_PORT number..."
- In reply to: Toru Okumura: "[mSQL] Question about TCP_PORT number..."
Message-Id: <32EDB474.FF6@toonboom.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 03:10:28 -0500 From: Alexandre Rousseau <alexr@toonboom.com> Subject: Re: [mSQL] mSQL 1.XXXX: How do I perform joins then ???Thanks to all who responded to my question. I suppose I will go the way
of
version 2.0 BETAn.
I of course decided to split my data set into n databases to accomodate
the one-to-many and the many-to-many nature of information. But I will
watch
out for thoses bugs and, hell, if worse comes to worse, I'll do it in
Perl
for a short while (what am I getting into ?).
I am attempting to prove to my employers that WWW tech support databases
do not
necessarily have to cost $25,000. A small working prototype should
convince them
to wait a little while 'til cooler heads prevail.
Many Thanks,
Alex.
Gary Bickford wrote:
>
> >> I have broken down my data requirements into 10 to 11 single-index
> >> databases. There will be many many-to-many relationships (!!) in my sets
> >> and I would much rather prefer not having to nest my loops n-permutation
> >> levels deep.
> ...
> >
> >2) try the 2.x beta and watch out for the reported bugs
>
> My recommendation. 2.0 seems to be reasonably robust, if installed
> correctly (??) and you don't use features that don't work. I'm building a
> system that required parenthetical clauses. it doesn't support LIMIT
> (yet?), but all in all I think it works fine! Be aware:
>
> LIKE '[Aa][Bb]' is now CLIKE 'ab'
> All PRIMARY KEYs must be removed - eventually I'm going to add INDEXes, but
> haven't got around to it yet.
>
> BTW - I'm no SQL guru, and I don't know anything about your application,
> but if there's a high degree of commonality between relations in some of
> those tables, it might be more efficient to combine them into one table.
> For example, if one has a table with ID and NAME, and another with ID and
> ADDRESS, and they're often used in the same query, this would be faster if
> they were in the same table.
>
> Not to say yours is that way - I think this is one of those judgment calls
> of database builders, that depend on the application and the data.
>
> end
> =======
> Gary Bickford, FXT Corporation http://www.fxt.com
> System integration, active web site design, intranets.
> garyb@fxt.com 541-923-3060
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To remove yourself from the Mini SQL mailing list send a message containing
> "unsubscribe" to > "unsubscribe" to msql-list-request@bunyip.com. Send a message containing
> "info msql-list" to majordomo@bunyip.com for info on monthly archives of
> the list. For more help, mail owner-msql-list@bunyip.com NOT the msql-list!
-- =============================================================== Alexandre Rousseau TOON BOOM TECHNOLOGIES INC. Technical Support & Engineering 7, Laurier Street East, Tel : +1.514.278.TOON Montreal (Quebec) H2T 1E4 Fax : +1.514.278.BOOM Canada =============================================================== E-mail : alexr@toonboom.com http://www.toonboom.com =============================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To remove yourself from the Mini SQL mailing list send a message containing "unsubscribe" to "unsubscribe" to msql-list-request@bunyip.com. Send a message containing "info msql-list" to majordomo@bunyip.com for info on monthly archives of the list. For more help, mail owner-msql-list@bunyip.com NOT the msql-list!