by Ed Prochak <edprochak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Jun 24, 2008 at 04:39 AM
On Jun 23, 5:47 pm, "Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>> On 6/23/2008 at 10:16 AM, in message
>
> <485F77F7.6F0F.008...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> Frank Swarbrick<Frank.Swarbr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting
this
> > idea down.
> > :-)
>
> Interesting. Here's a page my co-worker is using to justify his
position:http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1619660
>
> Frank
I'll just make a brief comment on OTLT.
I have seen this work, but only because of two key factors:
First factor was that the number of entries in the look up table was
small (about 20). Several of the entries existed only because that
DBMS lacked sequences.
The other factor was the discipline of the developers. New entries to
this table were made with consideration similar to that of adding new
columns to a normal table.
Seeing a OTLT with hundreds of entries means to me there is no logic
in the table. It has become a garbage heap and smells appropriately.
Ed
