by "Roy Hann" <specially@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49 AM
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:485950E4.6F0F.0085.0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The following is a message from a fellow programmer to a group of use
that
> are involved in table design:
>
> "We are planning on creating 'account opening sources' lookup table to
> store
> 'account source' codes and corresponding descriptions. Problem with
> storing
> this data in a dedicated table is that as we go on we'd end up with tens
> and
> possibly hundreds of lookup tables.
So what? Tables aren't rationed.
The desire to conceal complexity is not the same as the desire to remove
complexity. The former is counterproductive while the latter is
praiseworthy. What you describe is a a desire to conceal what is going
on.
How does that help anyone?
Maybe the implicit concern is not the number of tables in the database but
the amount of code required to maintain them. That's a programming
problem.
Get the programmors off their ***** and tell them to learn how to write
dynamic SQL.
Roy
