Re: database performance/design question
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 31482
interpreted = N
texte = The secondary database keyed into the primary is the best way to go; youthen have maximum flexibility. If you need to summarize by category, just use the keyed field in the main database as the sort field and within the [founditems] do a quick [lookup] for the full text to display for each group. You can also have multiple secondary databases and have each in a separate keyed field in the primary.John Peacockstuff wrote:> > Hello,> > I am trying to re-design a site and want to simplify some things (while> probably making it more complicated
)> > I am trying to make the database as flexible as possible as I have a couple> of other sites I would like to eventually launch using the same code base.> > I need to include some categories for my users to search on and I want to> standardize the database. What I am thinking of doing is the following.> > in my main database have a field of 'categories' This field would be of a> fixed length (fixed by my coding) of say 15 chars.> > The data would be simply 010011101010100> > In the search I would use [GetChars start=x&end=y][category][/GetChars]> > Is this just a dumb idea? I am trying to not have to have these 15 fields in> the main database. Would this slow things down a lot?> > Otherwise I could setup a separate database with the 15 fields and a key> filed to match to the main database, but then there is that nasty problem of> displaying the results of the search.> > The main reason for not wanting to put these 15 fields in the main database> is that I will probably have a few different categories with differing> numbers of fields required and then of course some day I might need more> than what I entered into the database in the beginning and would have to> shut down the server to make changes. And of course I might never need all> of the fields I enter so I would waste space.> > Thanks for any suggestions.> > Dale> > -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to -------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
The secondary database keyed into the primary is the best way to go; youthen have maximum flexibility. If you need to summarize by category, just use the keyed field in the main database as the sort field and within the [founditems] do a quick [lookup] for the full text to display for each group. You can also have multiple secondary databases and have each in a separate keyed field in the primary.John Peacockstuff wrote:> > Hello,> > I am trying to re-design a site and want to simplify some things (while> probably making it more complicated )> > I am trying to make the database as flexible as possible as I have a couple> of other sites I would like to eventually launch using the same code base.> > I need to include some categories for my users to search on and I want to> standardize the database. What I am thinking of doing is the following.> > in my main database have a field of 'categories' This field would be of a> fixed length (fixed by my coding) of say 15 chars.> > The data would be simply 010011101010100> > In the search I would use [GetChars start=x&end=y][category][/GetChars]> > Is this just a dumb idea? I am trying to not have to have these 15 fields in> the main database. Would this slow things down a lot?> > Otherwise I could setup a separate database with the 15 fields and a key> filed to match to the main database, but then there is that nasty problem of> displaying the results of the search.> > The main reason for not wanting to put these 15 fields in the main database> is that I will probably have a few different categories with differing> numbers of fields required and then of course some day I might need more> than what I entered into the database in the beginning and would have to> shut down the server to make changes. And of course I might never need all> of the fields I enter so I would waste space.> > Thanks for any suggestions.> > Dale> > -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to -------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
John Peacock
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Webmessage Hyperboard (1998)
Anyone have a one-to-one messageing system? (1999)
GoodPath and MoveFile (2000)
RE: protect tag on NT (1997)
Re:trouble (1997)
Emailer update for Mac? (1998)
WebCatalog can't find database (1997)
More than one db with the same namn (was: WC2f3) (1997)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
WebCatalog on LinuxPPC (2000)
wc 2 pro users - sites, quotes wanted (1997)
webcat2b12 CGI -- Date comparisons (1997)
E-mailer application times out (1998)
Only charge card when product shipped ? (1997)
Duplicates (1998)
WebCat editing, SiteGuard & SiteEdit (1997)
[url] issue (2000)
Location of Webcat site in folder hierarchy (1997)
apache/linux8/WC (2002)
Running 2 two WebCatalog.acgi's (1996)