guillotj
asked on
Common database for frequently used tables
SS2000
I have been asked to create a database that will contain utility tables that can be accessed from other databases. I'm not sure how to best approach this. For example, we may have a table that lists the abbreviation of U.S. states, or common charge codes in our company. What's the best way to accomplish, so that we have commonly used tables in one location?
thanks
I have been asked to create a database that will contain utility tables that can be accessed from other databases. I'm not sure how to best approach this. For example, we may have a table that lists the abbreviation of U.S. states, or common charge codes in our company. What's the best way to accomplish, so that we have commonly used tables in one location?
thanks
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I don't know, I can see some valid reasons for shared tables. U.S. state tables being a prime example. That might be needed in many different dbs, but why duplicate it in several places? Same for a zip code --> city table, area code <--> city table, and so on.
ASKER
>perhaps the result of poor original design?
Navicerts, you made me lol. You sure nailed that one...I've been here just a few weeks...people don't even know what a primary key is. I was going to teach a "brown bag" as we call it, on database normalization...no one has ever heard the term...poor original design? At least I have a sense of humor :-)
Navicerts, you made me lol. You sure nailed that one...I've been here just a few weeks...people don't even know what a primary key is. I was going to teach a "brown bag" as we call it, on database normalization...no one has ever heard the term...poor original design? At least I have a sense of humor :-)
I guess its that way pretty much every where you go. I just graduated, started my first job. after fixing a certain amount of data errors and begining the plans to redesign the entire db i realized that by ANY definition of the term "database" the company actually didnt have one.
ASKER
How do I link databases in SS, as referred to earlier in this thread?
i think that this idea pulls the db's further apart, creates something you dont need? a diffrent way to look at the problem would be to eliminate one of the data sets and bring the db's closer together.
if you have two totally independant db's instead of removing something from both of them and creating something new they can both link to you could eliminate the tabels from one of the db and link the second db to it.
a nice end result might be to have just one db?
-Navicerts