Hi,
I've laid out a _very_ simple database that tracks my artwork the
table 'works' looks like:
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| work_id | title | media | category | year | etc....
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| 1 | One | oil | painting | 2002 |
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| 2 | Two | stone | sculpture | 2003 |
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
and so on...
My question is, if I KNOW that I'll never have more than 500 rows in
the table (I don't make that much work per year) do I need to
normalize the table?
Right now I have alot of repeating data (say I make 10 "oil" piecesper
year) and from what I gather about normalizing the media row should be
a media_id row, with intergers pointing to a media table that indexes
each media:
works:
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| work_id | title | media_id | cat_id | year | etc....
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| 1 | One | 1 | 1 | 2002 |
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| 2 | Two | 2 | 2 | 2003 |
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
media:
+----------+----------+
| media_id | media |
+----------+----------+
| 1 | oil |
+----------+----------+
| 2 | stone |
+----------+----------+
but my question is, in a small table, one with at most 500 rows, am I
a loon to use the table at top, full of VARCHAR columns?
Most of the articles I've read about normalization talk about table
becoming very large, e.g. "I'm trying to SELECT 1,500,000 rows..." but
what I'm wondering is if you're making a table that has far less rows,
outside of "doing the right thing" by normalizing, is there a benefit
to spliting one large table into many small tables?
- Evan 4 2300
"Evan Escently" <ev**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com... Hi,
I've laid out a _very_ simple database that tracks my artwork the table 'works' looks like:
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | work_id | title | media | category | year | etc.... +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 1 | One | oil | painting | 2002 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 2 | Two | stone | sculpture | 2003 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
and so on...
My question is, if I KNOW that I'll never have more than 500 rows in the table (I don't make that much work per year) do I need to normalize the table?
Right now I have alot of repeating data (say I make 10 "oil" piecesper year) and from what I gather about normalizing the media row should be a media_id row, with intergers pointing to a media table that indexes each media:
works: +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | work_id | title | media_id | cat_id | year | etc.... +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 1 | One | 1 | 1 | 2002 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 2 | Two | 2 | 2 | 2003 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
media: +----------+----------+ | media_id | media | +----------+----------+ | 1 | oil | +----------+----------+ | 2 | stone | +----------+----------+
but my question is, in a small table, one with at most 500 rows, am I a loon to use the table at top, full of VARCHAR columns?
Most of the articles I've read about normalization talk about table becoming very large, e.g. "I'm trying to SELECT 1,500,000 rows..." but what I'm wondering is if you're making a table that has far less rows, outside of "doing the right thing" by normalizing, is there a benefit to spliting one large table into many small tables?
- Evan
Einstein once said that its easy to make things complicated - and
complicated to make things easy...
My guess is the benefit will be so insignificant as not even worrying
about - even if your database was to grow five or ten times your expected
size... I think you're making something easy, complicated - I'm sure there
would be a saving if you were talking about tens of thousands of records...
but nothing visable for something weighing in at a few hundred.... somebody
else here though might prove me wrong though...
randelld
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
The one basic rule to follow when creating your columns is, if you don't
know what to use and you can get away with 255 characters or less, then
use varchar.
Probably the ONLY time you'll ever need to be concerned is if this
server was an old 386 running at 16 mhz... lol.
I've run numerous configurations (including old pentium 266 processors)
with mysql and even with several hundred rows, and no indexes, virtually
no select statement has ever required more than 1 second, including
those with multiple table joins.
You've really got nothing to worry about, Your driving a Mercedes 500
and the only thing you're pulling is a unicycle with nobody on it.
Just my 2 cents anyway...
Evan Escently wrote: Hi,
I've laid out a _very_ simple database that tracks my artwork the table 'works' looks like:
.... snip...
"Evan Escently" <ev**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com... Hi,
I've laid out a _very_ simple database that tracks my artwork the table 'works' looks like:
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | work_id | title | media | category | year | etc.... +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 1 | One | oil | painting | 2002 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 2 | Two | stone | sculpture | 2003 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
and so on...
My question is, if I KNOW that I'll never have more than 500 rows in the table (I don't make that much work per year) do I need to normalize the table?
Right now I have alot of repeating data (say I make 10 "oil" piecesper year) and from what I gather about normalizing the media row should be a media_id row, with intergers pointing to a media table that indexes each media:
works: +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | work_id | title | media_id | cat_id | year | etc.... +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 1 | One | 1 | 1 | 2002 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+ | 2 | Two | 2 | 2 | 2003 | +---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
media: +----------+----------+ | media_id | media | +----------+----------+ | 1 | oil | +----------+----------+ | 2 | stone | +----------+----------+
but my question is, in a small table, one with at most 500 rows, am I a loon to use the table at top, full of VARCHAR columns?
Most of the articles I've read about normalization talk about table becoming very large, e.g. "I'm trying to SELECT 1,500,000 rows..." but what I'm wondering is if you're making a table that has far less rows, outside of "doing the right thing" by normalizing, is there a benefit to spliting one large table into many small tables?
- Evan
Einstein once said that its easy to make things complicated - and
complicated to make things easy...
My guess is the benefit will be so insignificant as not even worrying
about - even if your database was to grow five or ten times your expected
size... I think you're making something easy, complicated - I'm sure there
would be a saving if you were talking about tens of thousands of records...
but nothing visable for something weighing in at a few hundred.... somebody
else here though might prove me wrong though...
randelld
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
The one basic rule to follow when creating your columns is, if you don't
know what to use and you can get away with 255 characters or less, then
use varchar.
Probably the ONLY time you'll ever need to be concerned is if this
server was an old 386 running at 16 mhz... lol.
I've run numerous configurations (including old pentium 266 processors)
with mysql and even with several hundred rows, and no indexes, virtually
no select statement has ever required more than 1 second, including
those with multiple table joins.
You've really got nothing to worry about, Your driving a Mercedes 500
and the only thing you're pulling is a unicycle with nobody on it.
Just my 2 cents anyway...
Evan Escently wrote: Hi,
I've laid out a _very_ simple database that tracks my artwork the table 'works' looks like:
.... snip... This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: Evan Escently |
last post by:
Hi,
I've laid out a _very_ simple database that tracks my artwork the
table 'works' looks like:
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| work_id | title | media | category | year | etc....
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
| 1 | One | oil | painting | 2002 |
+---------+----------+------------+------------+-------------+
|
by: Kai Grossjohann |
last post by:
I have a table which contains a top-aligned table cell:
....
<tr style="height:40">
...
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"
style="overflow:hidden;">
...contents.explained.later...
</td>
...
|
by: jeffsal |
last post by:
I am using sorttable.js to sort a table which works fine which allows a
user to sort the table by clicking on the column header. Is there some
code I could add to the page (onload or something) to auto sort by the
first column without user clicking on it. Here is the sorttable.js
code.
addEvent(window, "load", sortables_init);
var SORT_COLUMN_INDEX;
|
by: cotton_gear |
last post by:
Hello,
Fiest of all let me thank this group for so quick in responding to any
postings.
I am using a javascript based utility from a site to sort the columns
of the table. But, for some strange reason it is not working on colmuns
containg checkboxes, text-boxes (or, any user input fileds). For
checkbox column, the values are lost when clicked on the column title
to sort.
I tried a lot to modify but couldnt achive what I wanted.
|
by: mm nn |
last post by:
Hi,
I want to create a table like this:
ID Autonum
Datefld Date
Cat Text
Itm Text
tCount Number
| |
by: Megan |
last post by:
hello everybody-
i'm normalizing a database i inherited. i'm breaking up a huge table
named case into several smaller tables. i am creating several many to
many relationships between the new case table and the other newly
created tables.
however, i have run into a problem when trying to create a many to
many relationship between 2 of my tables.
|
by: phil-news-nospam |
last post by:
Is there really any advantage to using DIV elements with float style
properies, vs. the old method of TABLE and TR and TD?
I'm finding that by using DIV, it still involves the same number of
elements in the HTML to get everything just right. When you consider
the class attribute on the DIV elements, there's not much size savings
anymore for using DIV.
There are other disadvantages to not using TABLE/TR/TD, such as the
lack of ability...
|
by: Richard Hollenbeck |
last post by:
I have a recipe database that I've been building but I haven't yet put any
of the ingredients in because of a little problem of normalization. If I
build a table of ingredients, all the recipes will have one or more
ingredient(s), but no set number of ingredients, so that doesn't seem
possible to normalize it. Any given recipe would use one, some, or all of
the ingredients within the ingredients table, so I can't imagine an
indefinite...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?UmljaCBIdXRjaGlucw==?= |
last post by:
I'm not really sure how to ask this question because I'm still getting my
feet wet with data access and VB.NET, but here goes:
To start off with, I'm using VB 2005 Express to connect to an Access database.
I have a dataset in which a parameterized query returns the correct result
set in the forms of a tableadapter and a bindingnavigator. In other words, I
can perform my query and see that the tableadapter and bindingnavigator
contain...
|
by: sanju |
last post by:
Hi all,
I am new in the world of javascript. Someone plz help me.
I have two tables containing 30 rows each. In first table there is
checkbox and in the second table there is radio buttons ahead each
row. If i select 5th & 6th row from first table then it should show
only the 5th & 6th row from the second table. The rows are same in
both table. Likewise the rows i select from first table should only
display from the second table..
plz...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
| |
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
| |
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |