>>> On 6/19/2008 at 11:31 AM, in message
<45e29577-7bf0-4e79-a433-85afc9d77f76@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
--CELKO--<jcelko212@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > I suggest that instead we create a more generic table that stores
> various codes used within a schema, along with corresponding description
> and a code 'category'. Another table (optional but recommended) would
> contain 'category' descriptions. <<
>
> The name of this design fallacy is OTLT ("One True Lookup Table") or
> MUCK ("Massively Unified Code Keys"). You can Google around more
> details or read Section 4.4 of THINKING IN SETS: AUXILIARY, TEM****AL
> AND VIRTUAL TABLES.
>
>>> This is not my idea, I've seen this approach used at other companies.
<<
>
> Me, too. I charge them $1K-2K per day to clean up stuff like this.
How did I know you'd have an opinion? :-)
No, I agree. I thought it was not the way to go, but I wanted to make
sure
I was thinking of the correct issue and not just something similar.
Thanks,
Frank
|
