Search Results

Search found 2372 results on 95 pages for 'relational theory'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 3/95 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • A Grand Unified Theory of AI

    A new approach unites two prevailing but often opposed strains in the history of AI research Artificial intelligence - Physics - Alternative - Quantum Mechanics - Quantum Field Theory

    Read the article

  • Designing a social network with CQRS, graph databases and relational databases in mind

    - by Siraj Mansour
    I have done quite an amount of research on the topic so far, but i couldn't come up with a conclusion to make up my mind. I am designing a social network and during my research i stumbled upon graph databases, i found neo4j pretty interesting for user relations and traversing through nodes. I also thought of using a relational database such as MS-SQL or MySQL to store entity data only and depending on neo4j for connections between entities. Of course this means more work in my application to store and pull data in and out of 2 different sources. My first question : Is using this approach (graph + relational) a good approach for designing my social network keeping in mind that users on social networks don't have to in synch with real data by split second ? What are the positives and negatives of this approach ? My Second question : I've been doing some reading on CQRS and as i understood it is mostly useful for collaborative environments, and environments where users see a lot of "stale" data. social networks has shared comments, events, etc .. and many users query or update the same data. Could CQRS be a helpful approach ? Would it give any performance/scalability benefits or non-useful complexity ? Is it fairly applicable with my possible choice of (graph + relational) databases approach mentioned in the question above ? My purpose is to know if the approaches i have mentioned above seem good enough for the business context.

    Read the article

  • How should I make searching a relational database more efficient?

    - by Travis J
    This is in the scope of a web application. I have a database which has a few nested relations. There is a feature which depicts the history of a large chain of relations. It is essentially a data analysis feature. The issue is that in order to search, a large object graph must be loaded - the loading time for this object graph is not quick enough to be viable. The problem is that without loading the whole graph it makes searching from a single string nearly impossible. In order to search, explicit fields must be specified and the search data supplied. Is there a design pattern for exposing the data in a way which facilitates a single string search instead of having to explicitly define parameters?

    Read the article

  • How would one build a relational database on a key-value store, a-la Berkeley DB's SQL interface?

    - by coleifer
    I've been checking out Berkeley DB and was impressed to find that it supported a SQL interface that is "nearly identical" to SQLite. http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17076_02/html/bdb-sql/dbsqlbasics.html#identicalusage I'm very curious, at a high-level, how this kind of interface might have been architected. For instance: since values are "transparent", how do you efficiently query and sort by value how are limits and offsets performed efficiently on large result sets how would the keys be structured and serialized for good average-case performance

    Read the article

  • What is a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)?

    A Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)  can also be called a traditional database that uses a Structured Query Language (SQL) to provide access to stored data while insuring the integrity of the data. The data is stored in a collection of tables that is defined by relationships between data items. In addition, data permitted to be joined in new relationships. Traditional databases primarily process data through transactions called transaction processing. Transaction processing is the methodology of grouping related business operations based predefined business events. An example of this can be seen when a person attempts to purchase an item from an online e-tailor. The business must execute specific operations for a related  business event. In this case, a business must store the following information: Customer Info, Order Info, Order Item Info, Customer Payment Data, Payment Results, and Current Order Status. Example: Pseudo SQL Operations needed for processing an online e-tailor sale. Insert Customer into Customers Insert New Order into Orders Insert Each New Order Item into OrderItems Insert Customer Payment Info into PaymentInfo Insert Payment Processing Result into PaymentDetails Update Customer for Current Order Status Common Relational Database Management System Microsoft SQL Server Microsoft Access Oracle MySQL DB2 It is important to note that no current RDBMS has fully implemented all of the Relational Principles. Common RDBMS Traits Volatile Data Supports Transaction Processing Optimized for Updates and Simple Queries 

    Read the article

  • The theory of evolution applied to software

    - by Michel Grootjans
    I recently realized the many parallels you can draw between the theory of evolution and evolving software. Evolution is not the proverbial million monkeys typing on a million typewriters, where one of them comes up with the complete works of Shakespeare. We would have noticed by now, since the proverbial monkeys are now blogging on the Internet ;-) One of the main ideas of the theory of evolution is the balance between random mutations and natural selection. Random mutations happen all the time: millions of mutations over millions of years. Most of them are totally useless. Some of them are beneficial to the evolved species. Natural selection favors the beneficially mutated species. Less beneficial mutations die off. The mutated rabbit doesn't have to be faster than the fox. It just has to be faster than the other rabbits.   Theory of evolution Evolving software Random mutations happen all the time. Most of these mutations are so bad, the new species dies off, or cannot reproduce. Developers write new code all the time. New ideas come up during the act of writing software. The really bad ones don't get past the stage of idea. The bad ones don't get committed to source control. Natural selection favors the beneficial mutated species Good ideas and new code gets discussed in group during informal peer review. Less than good code gets refactored. Enhanced code makes it more readable, maintainable... A good set of traits makes the species superior to others. It becomes widespread A good design tends to make it easier to add new features, easier to understand the current implementations, easier to optimize for performance...thus superior. The best designs get carried over from project to project. They appear in blogs, articles and books about principles, patterns and practices.   Of course the act of writing software is deliberate. This can hardly be called random mutations. Though it sometimes might seem that code evolves through a will of its own ;-) Does this mean that evolving software (evolution) is better than a big design up front (creationism)? Not necessarily. It's a false idea to think that a project starts from scratch and everything evolves from there. Everyone carries his experience of what works and what doesn't. Up front design is necessary, but is best kept simple and minimal, just enough to get you started. Let the good experiences and ideas help to drive the process, whether they come from you or from others, from past experience or from the most junior developer on your team. Once again, balance is the keyword. Balance design up front with evolution on a daily basis. How do you know what balance is right? Through your own experience of what worked and what didn't (here's evolution again). Notes: The evolution of software can quickly degenerate without discipline. TDD is a discipline that leaves little to chance on that part. Write your test to describe the new behavior. Write just enough code to make it behave as specified. Refactor to evolve the code to a higher standard. The responsibility of good design rests continuously on each developers' shoulders. Promiscuous pair programming helps quickly spreading the design to the whole team.

    Read the article

  • Are document-oriented databases meant to replace relational databases?

    - by evolve
    Recently I've been working a little with MongoDB and I have to say I really like it. However it is a completely different type of database then I am used. I've noticed that it is most definitely better for certain types of data, however for heavily normalized databases it might not be the best choice. It appears to me however that it can completely take the place of just about any relational database you may have and in most cases perform better, which is mind boggling. This leads me to ask a few questions: Are document-oriented databases have been developed to be the next generation of databases and basically replace relational databases completely? Is it possible that projects would be better off using both a document-oriented database and a relational database side by side for various data which is better suited for one or the other? If document-oriented databases are not meant to replace relational databases, then does anyone have an example of a database structure which would absolutely be better off in a relational database (or vice-versa)?

    Read the article

  • best way to store 1:1 user relationships in relational database

    - by aharon
    What is the best way to store user relationships, e.g. friendships, that must be bidirectional (you're my friend, thus I'm your friend) in a rel. database, e.g. MYSql? I can think of two ways: Everytime a user friends another user, I'd add two rows to a database, row A consisting of the user id of the innitiating user followed by the UID of the accepting user in the next column. Row B would be the reverse. You'd only add one row, UID(initiating user) followed by UID(accepting user); and then just search through both columns when trying to figure out whether user 1 is a friend of user 2. Surely there is something better?

    Read the article

  • Buddy List: Relational Database Table Design

    - by huntaub
    So, the modern concept of the buddy list: Let's say we have a table called Person. Now, that Person needs to have many buddies (of which each buddy is also in the person class). The most obvious way to construct a relationship would be through a join table. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 3 6 But, when a user wants to see their buddy list, the program would have to check the column 'person1_id' and 'person2_id' to find all of their buddies. Is this the appropriate way to implement this kind of table, or would it be better to add the record twice.. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 2 1 So that only one column has to be searched. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Storing Templates and Object-Oriented vs Relational Databases

    - by syrion
    I'm designing some custom blog software, and have run into a conundrum regarding database design. The software requires that there be multiple content types, each of which will require different entry forms and presentation templates. My initial instinct is to create these content types as objects, then serialize them and store them in the database as JSON or YAML, with the entry forms and templates as simple strings attached to the "contentTypes" table. This seems cumbersome, however. Are there established best practices for dealing with this design? Is this a use case where I should consider an object database? If I should be using an object database, which should I consider? I am currently working in Python and would prefer a capable Python library, but can move to Java if need be.

    Read the article

  • Strategy to structure a search index in a relational database

    - by neilc
    I am interested in suggestions for building an efficient and robust structure for indexing products in a new database I am building (i'm using MySql) When a product is entered through the form there are three parts I am interested in indexing for searching purposes. The product title The product description Tags The most important is title, followed by tags, followed by the description. I was thinking of using the following structure CREATE TABLE `searchindex` ( `id` INT NOT NULL , `word` VARCHAR( 255 ) NOT NULL , `weighting` INT NOT NULL , `product_id` INT NOT NULL , PRIMARY KEY ( `id` ) ) Then each time a product is created I would split apart the title, description and tags (removing common words) and award them a weighting. Then it is trivial to select out the words and corresponding products and order them by weighting. Is there a better way to do this? I would be worried that this strategy would slow down over time and as the database filled up.

    Read the article

  • relational type operation on key value storage

    - by wayne
    in my objects table i have id | type | parent | order | created and then in my data table i have object_id | key | value i want to get object of type 'x' where key 'y' === 'z' in the most optimal way possible. ie. get user where slug === 'jonny' i'm currently doing it with joins, because i'm doing this in mysql as a quick test. but i'll be moving to redis or a similar key/value storage system so obviously that won't work.

    Read the article

  • Relational Database arrays (H2, Java)

    - by Daddy Warbox
    I seem to have two options on how to implement arrays, and I want to know which I should go with: Use the ARRAY data type and (from what I understand) effectively serialize data objects into the database (which in my case are just wrapped primitive types; don't know of another way to make this work). Use a separate table and map with foreign keys for each array item. If you have experience with this (especially with H2), which would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Hadoop, NOSQL, and the Relational Model

    - by Phil Factor
    (Guest Editorial for the IT Pro/SysAdmin Newsletter)Whereas Relational Databases fit the world of commerce like a glove, it is useless to pretend that they are a perfect fit for all human endeavours. Although, with SQL Server, we’ve made great strides with indexing text, in processing spatial data and processing markup, there is still a problem in dealing efficiently with large volumes of ephemeral semi-structured data. Key-value stores such as Cassandra, Project Voldemort, and Riak are of great value for ephemeral data, and seem of equal value as a data-feed that provides aggregations to an RDBMS. However, the Document databases such as MongoDB and CouchDB are ideal for semi-structured data for which no fixed schema exists; analytics and logging are obvious examples. NoSQL products, such as MongoDB, tackle the semi-structured data problem with panache. MongoDB is designed with a simple document-oriented data model that scales horizontally across multiple servers. It doesn’t impose a schema, and relies on the application to enforce the data structure. This is another take on the old ‘EAV’ problem (where you don’t know in advance all the attributes of a particular entity) It uses a clever replica set design that allows automatic failover, and uses journaling for data durability. It allows indexing and ad-hoc querying. However, for SQL Server users, the obvious choice for handling semi-structured data is Apache Hadoop. There will soon be an ODBC Driver for Apache Hive .and an Add-in for Excel. Additionally, there are now two Hadoop-based connectors for SQL Server; the Apache Hadoop connector for SQL Server 2008 R2, and the SQL Server Parallel Data Warehouse (PDW) connector. We can connect to Hadoop process the semi-structured data and then store it in SQL Server. For one steeped in the culture of Relational SQL Databases, I might be expected to throw up my hands in the air in a gesture of contempt for a technology that was, judging by the overblown journalism on the subject, about to make my own profession as archaic as the Saggar makers bottom knocker (a potter’s assistant who helped the saggar maker to make the bottom of the saggar by placing clay in a metal hoop and bashing it). However, on the contrary, I find that I'm delighted with the advances made by the NoSQL databases in the past few years. Having the flow of ideas from the NoSQL providers will knock any trace of complacency out of the providers of Relational Databases and inspire them into back-fitting some features, such as horizontal scaling, with sharding and automatic failover into SQL-based RDBMSs. It will do the breed a power of good to benefit from all this lateral thinking.

    Read the article

  • Soapi.CS : A fully relational fluent .NET Stack Exchange API client library

    - by Sky Sanders
    Soapi.CS for .Net / Silverlight / Windows Phone 7 / Mono as easy as breathing...: var context = new ApiContext(apiKey).Initialize(false); Question thisPost = context.Official .StackApps .Questions.ById(386) .WithComments(true) .First(); Console.WriteLine(thisPost.Title); thisPost .Owner .Questions .PageSize(5) .Sort(PostSort.Votes) .ToList() .ForEach(q=> { Console.WriteLine("\t" + q.Score + "\t" + q.Title); q.Timeline.ToList().ForEach(t=> Console.WriteLine("\t\t" + t.TimelineType + "\t" + t.Owner.DisplayName)); Console.WriteLine(); }); // if you can think it, you can get it. Output Soapi.CS : A fully relational fluent .NET Stack Exchange API client library 21 Soapi.CS : A fully relational fluent .NET Stack Exchange API client library Revision code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Comment code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Answer code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet 14 SOAPI-WATCH: A realtime service that notifies subscribers via twitter when the API changes in any way. Votes code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Votes lfoust Votes code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Revision code poet Comment lfoust Votes code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Votes lfoust Votes code poet Revision code poet Comment Dave DeLong Revision code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Comment lfoust Comment Dave DeLong Comment lfoust Comment lfoust Comment Dave DeLong Revision code poet 11 SOAPI-EXPLORE: Self-updating single page JavaSript API test harness Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Comment code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Comment code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Comment code poet Question code poet Votes code poet 11 Soapi.JS V1.0: fluent JavaScript wrapper for the StackOverflow API Comment George Edison Comment George Edison Comment George Edison Comment George Edison Comment George Edison Comment George Edison Answer George Edison Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Answer code poet Comment code poet Revision code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Revision code poet Revision code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Votes code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet Comment code poet 9 SOAPI-DIFF: Your app broke? Check SOAPI-DIFF to find out what changed in the API Votes code poet Revision code poet Comment Dennis Williamson Answer Dennis Williamson Votes code poet Votes Dennis Williamson Comment code poet Question code poet Votes code poet About A robust, fully relational, easy to use, strongly typed, end-to-end StackOverflow API Client Library. Out of the box, Soapi provides you with a robust client library that abstracts away most all of the messy details of consuming the API and lets you concentrate on implementing your ideas. A few features include: A fully relational model of the API data set exposed via a fully 'dot navigable' IEnumerable (LINQ) implementation. Simply tell Soapi what you want and it will get it for you. e.g. "On my first question, from the author of the first comment, get the first page of comments by that person on any post" my.Questions.First().Comments.First().Owner.Comments.ToList(); (yes this is a real expression that returns the data as expressed!) Full coverage of the API, all routes and all parameters with an intuitive syntax. Strongly typed Domain Data Objects for all API data structures. Eager and Lazy Loading of 'stub' objects. Eager\Lazy loading may be disabled. When finer grained control of requests is desired, the core RouteMap objects may be leveraged to request data from any of the API paths using all available parameters as documented on the help pages. A rich Asynchronous implementation. A configurable request cache to reduce unnecessary network traffic and to simplify your usage logic. There is no need to go out of your way to be frugal. You may set a distinct cache duration for any particular route. A configurable request throttle to ensure compliance with the api terms of usage and to simplify your code in that you do not have to worry about and respond to 50X errors. The RequestCache and Throttled Queue are thread-safe, so can make as many requests as you like from as many threads as you like as fast as you like and not worry about abusing the api or having to write reams of management/compensation code. Configurable retry threshold that will, by default, make up to 3 attempts to retrieve a request before failing. Every request made by Soapi is properly formed and directed so most any http error will be the result of a timeout or other network infrastructure. A retry buffer provides a level of fault tolerance that you can rely on. An almost identical javascript library, Soapi.JS, and it's full figured big brother, Soapi.JS2, that will enable you to leverage your server cycles and bandwidth for only those tasks that require it and offload things like status updates to the client's browser. License Licensed GPL Version 2 license. Why is Soapi.CS GPL? Can I get an LGPL license for Soapi.CS? (hint: probably) Platforms .NET 3.5 .NET 4.0 Silverlight 3 Silverlight 4 Windows Phone 7 Mono Download Source code lives @ http://soapics.codeplex.com. Binary releases are forthcoming. codeplex is acting up again. get the source and binaries @ http://bitbucket.org/bitpusher/soapi.cs/downloads The source is C# 3.5. and includes projects and solutions for the following IDEs Visual Studio 2008 Visual Studio 2010 ModoDevelop 2.4 Documentation Full documentation is available at http://soapi.info/help/cs/index.aspx Sample Code / Usage Examples Sample code and usage examples will be added as answers to this question. Full API Coverage all API routes are covered Full Parameter Parity If the API exposes it, Soapi giftwraps it for you. Building a simple app with Soapi.CS - a simple app that gathers all traces of a user in the whole stackiverse. Fluent Configuration - Setting up a Soapi.ApiContext could not be easier Bulk Data Import - A tiny app that quickly loads a SQLite data file with all users in the stackiverse. Paged Results - Soapi.CS transparently handles multi-page operations. Asynchronous Requests - Soapi.CS provides a rich asynchronous model that is especially useful when writing api apps in Silverlight or Windows Phone 7. Caching and Throttling - how and why Apps that use Soapi.CS Soapi.FindUser - .net utility for locating a user anywhere in the stackiverse Soapi.Explore - The entire API at your command Soapi.LastSeen - List users by last access time Add your app/site here - I know you are out there ;-) if you are not comfortable editing this post, simply add a comment and I will add it. The CS/SL/WP7/MONO libraries all compile the same code and with the exception of environmental considerations of Silverlight, the code samples are valid for all libraries. You may also find guidance in the test suites. More information on the SOAPI eco-system. Contact This library is currently the effort of me, Sky Sanders (code poet) and can be reached at gmail - sky.sanders Any who are interested in improving this library are welcome. Support Soapi You can help support this project by voting for Soapi's Open Source Ad post For more information about the origins of Soapi.CS and the rest of the Soapi eco-system see What is Soapi and why should I care?

    Read the article

  • Resources on concepts/theory behind GUI development?

    - by ShrimpCrackers
    I was wondering if there were any resources that explain concepts/theory behind GUI development. I don't mean a resource that explains how to use a GUI library, but rather how to create your own widgets. For example a resource that explains different methods on how to implement scrollable listboxes. I ask because I have an idea for a game tool where I would like to create my own widgets and let users drag and drop them onto some kind of form. How do GUI libraries usually draw widgets? I'm not sure if reskinning widgets from a GUI library fits my needs, since widget behavior needs to be dynamic based on user interaction.

    Read the article

  • Data Modeling Resources

    - by Dejan Sarka
    You can find many different data modeling resources. It is impossible to list all of them. I selected only the most valuable ones for me, and, of course, the ones I contributed to. Books Chris J. Date: An Introduction to Database Systems – IMO a “must” to understand the relational model correctly. Terry Halpin, Tony Morgan: Information Modeling and Relational Databases – meet the object-role modeling leaders. Chris J. Date, Nikos Lorentzos and Hugh Darwen: Time and Relational Theory, Second Edition: Temporal Databases in the Relational Model and SQL – all theory needed to manage temporal data. Louis Davidson, Jessica M. Moss: Pro SQL Server 2012 Relational Database Design and Implementation – the best SQL Server focused data modeling book I know by two of my friends. Dejan Sarka, et al.: MCITP Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-441): Designing Database Solutions by Using Microsoft® SQL Server™ 2005 – SQL Server 2005 data modeling training kit. Most of the text is still valid for SQL Server 2008, 2008 R2, 2012 and 2014. Itzik Ben-Gan, Lubor Kollar, Dejan Sarka, Steve Kass: Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2008 T-SQL Querying – Steve wrote a chapter with mathematical background, and I added a chapter with theoretical introduction to the relational model. Itzik Ben-Gan, Dejan Sarka, Roger Wolter, Greg Low, Ed Katibah, Isaac Kunen: Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2008 T-SQL Programming – I added three chapters with theoretical introduction and practical solutions for the user-defined data types, dynamic schema and temporal data. Dejan Sarka, Matija Lah, Grega Jerkic: Training Kit (Exam 70-463): Implementing a Data Warehouse with Microsoft SQL Server 2012 – my first two chapters are about data warehouse design and implementation. Courses Data Modeling Essentials – I wrote a 3-day course for SolidQ. If you are interested in this course, which I could also deliver in a shorter seminar way, you can contact your closes SolidQ subsidiary, or, of course, me directly on addresses [email protected] or [email protected]. This course could also complement the existing courseware portfolio of training providers, which are welcome to contact me as well. Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications – online course I wrote for Pluralsight. Working with Temporal data in SQL Server – my latest Pluralsight course, where besides theory and implementation I introduce many original ways how to optimize temporal queries. Forthcoming presentations SQL Bits 12, July 17th – 19th, Telford, UK – I have a full-day pre-conference seminar Advanced Data Modeling Topics there.

    Read the article

  • How to create a nested form in backbone relational?

    - by jebek
    I would like to be able to create nested models at the same time in backbone. I know how to use backbone relational to create the parent model. Then once it is saved, I can create child models through backbone relational. However, I want to be able to create both the parent and child models at the same time, which might not be possible because I can only create the child model once the parent model has already been created. For example, let's say I was creating a forum like the one from the awesome backbone relational tutorial - http://antoviaque.org/docs/tutorials/backbone-relational-tutorial/. I would want to create a thread and a message at the same time(through the click of a single button) rather than create a thread then a message. Is this possible? Is there a better way of doing this that I'm not thinking of?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Enumerations in Relational Database – Best Practice

    - by pinaldave
    Marko Parkkola This article has been submitted by Marko Parkkola, Data systems designer at Saarionen Oy, Finland. Marko is excellent developer and always thinking at next level. You can read his earlier comment which created very interesting discussion here: SQL SERVER- IF EXISTS(Select null from table) vs IF EXISTS(Select 1 from table). I must express my special thanks to Marko for sending this best practice for Enumerations in Relational Database. He has really wrote excellent piece here and welcome comments here. Enumerations in Relational Database This is a subject which is very basic thing in relational databases but often not very well understood and sometimes badly implemented. There are of course many ways to do this but I concentrate only two cases, one which is “the right way” and one which is definitely wrong way. The concept Let’s say we have table Person in our database. Person has properties/fields like Firstname, Lastname, Birthday and so on. Then there’s a field that tells person’s marital status and let’s name it the same way; MaritalStatus. Now MaritalStatus is an enumeration. In C# I would definitely make it an enumeration with values likes Single, InRelationship, Married, Divorced. Now here comes the problem, SQL doesn’t have enumerations. The wrong way This is, in my opinion, absolutely the wrong way to do this. It has one upside though; you’ll see the enumeration’s description instantly when you do simple SELECT query and you don’t have to deal with mysterious values. There’s plenty of downsides too and one would be database fragmentation. Consider this (I’ve left all indexes and constraints out of the query on purpose). CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Person] ( [Firstname] NVARCHAR(100), [Lastname] NVARCHAR(100), [Birthday] datetime, [MaritalStatus] NVARCHAR(10) ) You have nvarchar(20) field in the table that tells the marital status. Obvious problem with this is that what if you create a new value which doesn’t fit into 20 characters? You’ll have to come and alter the table. There are other problems also but I’ll leave those for the reader to think about. The correct way Here’s how I’ve done this in many projects. This model still has one problem but it can be alleviated in the application layer or with CHECK constraints if you like. First I will create a namespace table which tells the name of the enumeration. I will add one row to it too. I’ll write all the indexes and constraints here too. CREATE TABLE [CodeNamespace] ( [Id] INT IDENTITY(1, 1), [Name] NVARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_CodeNamespace] PRIMARY KEY ([Id]), CONSTRAINT [IXQ_CodeNamespace_Name] UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED ([Name]) ) GO INSERT INTO [CodeNamespace] SELECT 'MaritalStatus' GO Then I create a table that holds the actual values and which reference to namespace table in order to group the values under different namespaces. I’ll add couple of rows here too. CREATE TABLE [CodeValue] ( [CodeNamespaceId] INT NOT NULL, [Value] INT NOT NULL, [Description] NVARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, [OrderBy] INT, CONSTRAINT [PK_CodeValue] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([CodeNamespaceId], [Value]), CONSTRAINT [FK_CodeValue_CodeNamespace] FOREIGN KEY ([CodeNamespaceId]) REFERENCES [CodeNamespace] ([Id]) ) GO -- 1 is the 'MaritalStatus' namespace INSERT INTO [CodeValue] SELECT 1, 1, 'Single', 1 INSERT INTO [CodeValue] SELECT 1, 2, 'In relationship', 2 INSERT INTO [CodeValue] SELECT 1, 3, 'Married', 3 INSERT INTO [CodeValue] SELECT 1, 4, 'Divorced', 4 GO Now there’s four columns in CodeValue table. CodeNamespaceId tells under which namespace values belongs to. Value tells the enumeration value which is used in Person table (I’ll show how this is done below). Description tells what the value means. You can use this, for example, column in UI’s combo box. OrderBy tells if the values needs to be ordered in some way when displayed in the UI. And here’s the Person table again now with correct columns. I’ll add one row here to show how enumerations are to be used. CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Person] ( [Firstname] NVARCHAR(100), [Lastname] NVARCHAR(100), [Birthday] datetime, [MaritalStatus] INT ) GO INSERT INTO [Person] SELECT 'Marko', 'Parkkola', '1977-03-04', 3 GO Now I said earlier that there is one problem with this. MaritalStatus column doesn’t have any database enforced relationship to the CodeValue table so you can enter any value you like into this field. I’ve solved this problem in the application layer by selecting all the values from the CodeValue table and put them into a combobox / dropdownlist (with Value field as value and Description as text) so the end user can’t enter any illegal values; and of course I’ll check the entered value in data access layer also. I said in the “The wrong way” section that there is one benefit to it. In fact, you can have the same benefit here by using a simple view, which I schema bound so you can even index it if you like. CREATE VIEW [dbo].[Person_v] WITH SCHEMABINDING AS SELECT p.[Firstname], p.[Lastname], p.[BirthDay], c.[Description] MaritalStatus FROM [dbo].[Person] p JOIN [dbo].[CodeValue] c ON p.[MaritalStatus] = c.[Value] JOIN [dbo].[CodeNamespace] n ON n.[Id] = c.[CodeNamespaceId] AND n.[Name] = 'MaritalStatus' GO -- Select from View SELECT * FROM [dbo].[Person_v] GO This is excellent write up byMarko Parkkola. Do you have this kind of design setup at your organization? Let us know your opinion. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Best Practices, Database, DBA, Readers Contribution, Software Development, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Documentation, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Book Review (Book 10) - The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood

    - by BuckWoody
    This is a continuation of the books I challenged myself to read to help my career - one a month, for year. You can read my first book review here, and the entire list is here. The book I chose for March 2012 was: The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood by James Gleick. I was traveling at the end of last month so I’m a bit late posting this review here. Why I chose this book: My personal belief about computing is this: All computing technology is simply re-arranging data. We take data in, we manipulate it, and we send it back out. That’s computing. I had heard from some folks about this book and it’s treatment of data. I heard that it dealt with the basics of data - and the semantics of data, information and so on. It also deals with the earliest forms of history of information, which fascinates me. It’s similar I was told, to GEB which a favorite book of mine as well, so that was a bonus. Some folks I talked to liked it, some didn’t - so I thought I would check it out. What I learned: I liked the book. It was longer than I thought - took quite a while to read, even though I tend to read quickly. This is the kind of book you take your time with. It does in fact deal with the earliest forms of human interaction and the basics of data. I learned, for instance, that the genesis of the binary communication system is based in the invention of telegraph (far-writing) codes, and that the earliest forms of communication were expensive. In fact, many ciphers were invented not to hide military secrets, but to compress information. A sort of early “lol-speak” to keep the cost of transmitting data low! I think the comparison with GEB is a bit over-reaching. GEB is far more specific, fanciful and so on. In fact, this book felt more like something fro Richard Dawkins, and tended to wander around the subject quite a bit. I imagine the author doing his research and writing each chapter as a book that followed on from the last one. This is what possibly bothered those who tended not to like it, I think. Towards the middle of the book, I think the author tended to be a bit too fragmented even for me. He began to delve into memes, biology and more - I think he might have been better off breaking that off into another work. The existentialism just seemed jarring. All in all, I liked the book. I recommend it to any technical professional, specifically ones involved with data technology in specific. And isn’t that all of us? :)

    Read the article

  • Book Review: Pro SQL Server 2008 Relational Database Design and Implementation

    - by Alexander Kuznetsov
    Investing in proper database design is a very efficient way to cut maintenance costs. If we expect a system to last, we need to make sure it has a good solid foundation - high quality database design. Surely we can and sometimes do cut corners and save on database design to get things done faster. Unfortunately, such cutting corners frequently comes back and bites us: we may end up spending a lot of time solving issues caused by poor design. So, solid understanding of relational database design is...(read more)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >