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 = 49738
interpreted = N
texte = Alex McCombie wrote: > Since all things being equal, the multiple data sets within a single field > using a delimiter is potentially far less raw data than a relation DB that > duplicates ID numbers and SKU's.Except you are arguing apples to my oranges. I described the best way that I know how to handle _his_ problem, not yours. He wants to maintain a sorted list of subvalues, which requires a context that does not yet exist in WebDNA, [sortwords]. He is already going to hit the visitors.db, maybe create a temporary DB to sort his subtable, then hit the products.db. I can assure you that it is much faster to design for three databases initially, than to create one on the fly (which _will_ hit the disk drive whether you need to store it or not).There are perfectly valid reasons to maintain tightly coupled data in subtables: 4D explicitely supports it (and it has been a complete nightmare for me since it doesn't work with their ODBC driver); Oracle has a feature where you can store two associated tables in the same physical region of the database file (think HEADER, DETAIL, DETAIL, HEADER, DETAIL) so that the optimizer can retrieve the requested fields from both tables in a join at the same time; there are hierarchical databases which store all associated fields in subtables (the only one I have used requires periodic manual cleaning to recover deleted or shrunken records, it's very ugly).But this is not the problem he wanted to solve. The number of return visitors is unlikely to be more than a tiny fraction of the size of the products database. In other words the addition of another database search is going to be swamped by the time it takes to search the much larger products database. If your subtable contains values that you do not need to ever look up in another database, then storing them in a single field is a reasonable response.John-- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5747 ------------------------------------------------------------- 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:
Alex McCombie wrote: > Since all things being equal, the multiple data sets within a single field > using a delimiter is potentially far less raw data than a relation DB that > duplicates ID numbers and SKU's.Except you are arguing apples to my oranges. I described the best way that I know how to handle _his_ problem, not yours. He wants to maintain a sorted list of subvalues, which requires a context that does not yet exist in WebDNA, [sortwords]. He is already going to hit the visitors.db, maybe create a temporary DB to sort his subtable, then hit the products.db. I can assure you that it is much faster to design for three databases initially, than to create one on the fly (which _will_ hit the disk drive whether you need to store it or not).There are perfectly valid reasons to maintain tightly coupled data in subtables: 4D explicitely supports it (and it has been a complete nightmare for me since it doesn't work with their ODBC driver); Oracle has a feature where you can store two associated tables in the same physical region of the database file (think HEADER, DETAIL, DETAIL, HEADER, DETAIL) so that the optimizer can retrieve the requested fields from both tables in a join at the same time; there are hierarchical databases which store all associated fields in subtables (the only one I have used requires periodic manual cleaning to recover deleted or shrunken records, it's very ugly).But this is not the problem he wanted to solve. The number of return visitors is unlikely to be more than a tiny fraction of the size of the products database. In other words the addition of another database search is going to be swamped by the time it takes to search the much larger products database. If your subtable contains values that you do not need to ever look up in another database, then storing them in a single field is a reasonable response.John-- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5747 ------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
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:
Online reference (1997)
[WebDNA] Base 64 (2010)
OT: 4.5 Unix License Value? (2004)
Checking Webdna is running (2007)
createfolder not behaving as expected (1999)
limitation found on group searching (1997)
emailer setup (1997)
no global [username] or [password] displayed ... (1997)
Single Link browsing (1997)
No luck with taxes (1997)
View Source from cache (1997)
[WebDNA] Error 500 with SUMM=T (2017)
Card clearance, problems - solutions? (1997)
ThreadMem ignored? (1998)
PDF Tools (2006)
Kaaaaahhhhhhhnnnnnnn! (1997)
[WebDNA] Authorize working connection... (2019)
how to use encrypt and searching (1998)
[OT] Mac Utility Required (2000)
memory leaks (2005)