| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 57175 | 2005-04-25 18:51:00 | Data base for beginners | tylden (4262) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 348685 | 2005-04-27 12:01:00 | Works is only capable of producing a single (flat) table database. Any real database usually ends up to be relational (i.e. more than one table) - so my suggestion is design carefully what you want to do before you decide to go with Works. | johnd (85) | ||
| 348686 | 2005-04-28 23:11:00 | JOHNd is quite correct of course. MSWORKS database as I pointed out in my original suggestion is not relational. But over the years I have only once needed a relational database. And that was in the days of DOS. For most people a flat file database is far better for their purposes. I have written probably over 100 and still use lots and lots. ALL FLAT FILE. Easy simple and working the way we have for hundreds of years. Remember the old advice KISS. Mind you I do think relational databases are pretty cool. I find they are too time consuming for me though, because most of mine are less than 1000 entries. Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 348687 | 2005-04-29 02:18:00 | Hi guys. I hardly think that tylden was looking for some esoteric flight of fancy for his 250 member club. ;) | Scouse (83) | ||
| 348688 | 2005-04-29 02:23:00 | ..... because most of mine are less than 1000 entries. Tom Whether or not a database is flat table or relational has little to do with the number of entries - rather the functionality. In most cases a relational database is easier to work with than a flat table when there should really be more than one table. Duplication of entries quickly becomes a problem. My advice is still - get somebody who knows about dBase design to have a look at your requirements before you commit yourself to a flat table design. It may save time in the long run (and result in a far more useful database). |
johnd (85) | ||
| 348689 | 2005-04-29 02:24:00 | "Flat" database will use lots of disk space and require much duplication of data. | Rob99 (151) | ||
| 348690 | 2005-04-29 04:49:00 | We do have fun when discussing flat file v relational databases but I stick to my advice - ALWAYS use a flatfile if possible - its often quicker in the long run where people are involved who don't live for computers. As for space I see my BIG flatfile for my daily log is only 975 696 after 5 years of really being used a heck of a lot, and my 60 plus databases add up to 6 122 K Hardly the stuff to frighten anybody. Ages since I tried writing a relational database - I really must have a go at it again - but Access scares the pants off me. And blow me down I cannot think of anything that NEEDS a relational dbase. OK I know thats no excuse. I will try - honest. Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||