Re: How to best sort in a pre-defined item-by-item order ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 49733
interpreted = N
texte = > Create a new database favorites.db with the following columns: > userid
hitsSKU ... [snip]Thanks for the suggestion John.I know how to do it the way you suggested, so that's really not the issue here. My true goal in this case is to avoid creating yet another database if possible, and instead to maintain all the visitor's data in a single visitors.db file, even if it means the webdna engine has to work a little harder.If all the data related to each visitor can be stored in -- as well as accessed from -- the visitors.db without the need for any other supporting db's, and without causing an unreasonable slowdown in the performance of the webdna engine, then that's what I hope to achieve.> This is another instance of not using the tool to it's full potential.I believe that my solution will actually exploit the tool's greater potential by making it do more work for me... whereas doing it your way just makes it easy on the tool instead of exploiting the tool's true potential.> I have never seen a single instance of someone wanting to store > multiple values in a single field that wasn't more efficiently > done using multiple rows in a database instead.I guess it all depends upon what you consider to be efficient. My view of efficiency takes into consideration not only the processing of data, but also the time required for development of the site -- and also the time required on an ongoing basis to maintain the data stored on the site.In this project, I need to keep my development time down. One way to do this is to keeping the amount of multi-db searches and updates to a minimum. I also need to consider my personal investment in the time required for ongoing maintenance ... so my ongoing support costs of maintaining several db's does not become an issue.I also need to be able to turn over the maintenance of this data to a novice who has very limited capabilities when it comes to dealing with db files, and who will probably screw things up if he/she has to update any more than one db file on a regular basis.So ... if I build a solution that stores all the required data in a single db, the webdna engine may have to work a little harder to display the data properly, but the benefit to me (personally) is that I end up doing a lot less work on the site -- not only during development, but also later when I have to perform regular maintenance.And if I can EASILY turn over the regular maintenance tasks to a novice by giving him/her only one db file to update (instead of several), then that makes the entire project even more 'efficient' for me.All I'm saying here is that sometimes, using what may appear to be an 'inefficient' coding technique actually results in the conservation of human time -- which to me is far more important than a few microseconds of computer time.:) -- Sincerely, Kenneth Grome---------------------------------------------- Wholesale WebDNA programming only $27 an hour! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
> Create a new database favorites.db with the following columns: > useridhitsSKU ... [snip]Thanks for the suggestion John.I know how to do it the way you suggested, so that's really not the issue here. My true goal in this case is to avoid creating yet another database if possible, and instead to maintain all the visitor's data in a single visitors.db file, even if it means the webdna engine has to work a little harder.If all the data related to each visitor can be stored in -- as well as accessed from -- the visitors.db without the need for any other supporting db's, and without causing an unreasonable slowdown in the performance of the webdna engine, then that's what I hope to achieve.> This is another instance of not using the tool to it's full potential.I believe that my solution will actually exploit the tool's greater potential by making it do more work for me... whereas doing it your way just makes it easy on the tool instead of exploiting the tool's true potential.> I have never seen a single instance of someone wanting to store > multiple values in a single field that wasn't more efficiently > done using multiple rows in a database instead.I guess it all depends upon what you consider to be efficient. My view of efficiency takes into consideration not only the processing of data, but also the time required for development of the site -- and also the time required on an ongoing basis to maintain the data stored on the site.In this project, I need to keep my development time down. One way to do this is to keeping the amount of multi-db searches and updates to a minimum. I also need to consider my personal investment in the time required for ongoing maintenance ... so my ongoing support costs of maintaining several db's does not become an issue.I also need to be able to turn over the maintenance of this data to a novice who has very limited capabilities when it comes to dealing with db files, and who will probably screw things up if he/she has to update any more than one db file on a regular basis.So ... if I build a solution that stores all the required data in a single db, the webdna engine may have to work a little harder to display the data properly, but the benefit to me (personally) is that I end up doing a lot less work on the site -- not only during development, but also later when I have to perform regular maintenance.And if I can EASILY turn over the regular maintenance tasks to a novice by giving him/her only one db file to update (instead of several), then that makes the entire project even more 'efficient' for me.All I'm saying here is that sometimes, using what may appear to be an 'inefficient' coding technique actually results in the conservation of human time -- which to me is far more important than a few microseconds of computer time.:) -- Sincerely, Kenneth Grome---------------------------------------------- Wholesale WebDNA programming only $27 an hour! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Kenneth Grome
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:
WebCat2.0 acgi vs plugin (1997)
Renaming textA (1998)
no global [username] or [password] displayed ... (1997)
Seeking Better Display of results... (1997)
Upgrading old WebCat Database Files (1997)
decrypt and summ problems (1999)
SSL and Webstar 3 with Webcatalog (1998)
Displaying photo attached to first record (1997)
ErrorMessage.db and redirect URL (1998)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Installing WebCat under Linux Q (2000)
WebDelivery downloads alias, not original ? (1997)
WebCat2b14MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't hide the search string (1997)
Calendar using WebCatalog? (1997)
[searchString] (1997)
[WebDNA] v.7 and eCommerce (2012)
Open Databases on Restart (1999)
database search help (2003)
OT: well sort of - database design (2003)
rename a file (1997)