Ordering
Thanks for the reply.
Wouldn't the solution you proposed assume that the ordering does not matter? In my case I care about the ordering so that would require a seperate column (Order) or I guess I could try to use the row ordering in the table if that was guaranteed to be kept consistently in order on SELECT.
Thanks!
ulas
Last Activity: Nov 25 '09, 02:16 AM
Joined: Sep 24 '08
Location:
-
-
Hello,
Thanks for the reply and my apologies about the lack of detail. OK let's make it more concrete.
Let's say you are storing playlists for users. There are two tables that you are using for this purpose:
PlaylistPrefere nce: [PreferenceID] SequenceID
Sequence: [SequenceID] Song1 .... Song10
What I am trying to figure out is would it be better to have 10 columns or is there a smarter...Leave a comment:
-
Storing a series of numbers of variable length
Hi,
I am designing a table in SQL Server 2008 which will contain, in each row, a list of numbers of variable length. The maximum (10) and minimum (2) list lengths are known. The most obvious approach seems to be just creating 10 columns (num1, num2....,num10) and making num3...num10 nullable. Is there a better way of doing this? It just seems wasteful to have so many columns that will be empty most of the time for most of the rows... -
Oh right right - I meant in terms of performance so I misunderstood you slightly. Thank you for the pointer though :)...Leave a comment:
-
Do you mean in terms of just the userID columns that I will be adding or in general? I will definitely be enfording referential integrity as this makes logical sense to me in general but what kind of gains am I looking at by enabling this (purely a question of educational pursuit here ;)) ?...Leave a comment:
-
Thank you so much for the response. As I said earlier, DBMSs are not my specialty so even something as basic as this can raise a question flag (well, may be basic but has huge implications since it affects the design :)).
My main worry was table level locks during (at least) UPDATEs to the table but since that does not seem to be the case, I feel much better about this option.
Thanks again!
ulasLeave a comment:
-
A set of tables for each user vs one set of large tables
Hi,
This is a pretty basic question I guess but it is one that I cannot decide one way or another on so I thought I should consult people who know much more about databases than me :)
So the problem I am looking at is this - there is a set of tables, around 20-30, which are used by an application with a single user. I am going to be working on converting this application into a multi-user system where each user, in essence,...
No activity results to display
Leave a comment: