|
|
Posted by ian on 05/23/05 06:06
On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:58:25 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>Ian wrote:
>> I have a number of very simple MySQL tables with identical
>> structure as follows:
>
>Since your tables are identical, I would use just one table with an
>extra field for DIRECTORY. It would contain values "White", "Pigot" etc.
It's not quite as simple as that - you need to use the full directory
name or at least indicate who the compiler is, ie White, Pigot etc,
which are is covered, i.e. Sheffield, Leeds etc and what year the
directory covers, i.e 1841.
>
>(No harping about 3NF, folks. This should do for the poster.)
>
>
>Found this after scrolling for several meters...
>
>> So, what I was wondering is would it be better to put them all in
>> the same table and add the fields DIRECTORY and YEAR. The only
>> problem I can see with that is that the name and year of the
>> directory will occupy as much space as the other 4 fields put
>> together so seems like it will waste a lot of space, unless I use a
>> token to represent the directory name. Basically, as a beginner,
>> would appreciate any advice from those with more experience of this
>> kind of thing.
>
>Your samples don't have YEAR. What's that about? If you need it, add it.
The year I was referring to was in respect of the directory, i.e.
White's 1862 or whatever.
What was troubling me with this single table method is that the
directory name is often going to take up more space than the actual
meaningful data, i.e. surname, forename etc so seems very extravagent
given there are going to be greater than 100,000 entries in the table.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|