"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9oi064dbl8htvt6prrc89cadtgkjgiu399@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"David Cressey" <cressey73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:_dO7k.7468$qb7.996@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> The other programmer's reasoning is presumably exactly what he said
in
>>>> his
>>>> email (the snippet that you included), the concern that there will be
>>>> an
>>>> explosion in the number of tables. That he's not aware of the
pitfalls
>>>> of
>>>> his suggested approach is no great surprise...back in the day I
surely
>>>> designed tables like this also, I'm sure all of us have.
>>>>
>>> Some of us learned database design before we began designing
databases.
>>
>>Most of us learn by doing, and it's during that process that you make
>>mistakes. You're not seriously suggesting you've never made any?
>
> There is making mistakes while learning to apply a workable
> method, and there is making mistakes because one did not learn first.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
I agree. But it's also possible to be conscientious about educating
oneself - doing lots of Googling, reading articles and books, working
quality tutorials, posing questions on newsgroups - and nevertheless miss
things. Introductory material will not address intermediate and advanced
issues in detail, for example. Learning OTJ from peers and superiors is
also
hit and miss. And not infrequently you simply will not think to research
something because you do not know that you do not know.
Take the subject of this thread, for example. *Once* you are somewhat
aware
that there is such a database design issue, it doesn't take much Googling
to
turn up some good articles about it. But absent that initial awareness
it's
not that obvious.
AHS
|
