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; you then 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:

    
  1. Re: database performance/design question (John Peacock 2000)
  2. database performance/design question (stuff 2000)
The secondary database keyed into the primary is the best way to go; you then 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)