mbhey101
asked on
Updating Access Database fields ?
Hello again,
I am coming to the end of my first substantial VB6 project with ADO and MSAccess 2002 and upon looking over the update code (in others updating the databases) I see that for various reasons the procedures I have written will update say field 1, then field 100, then field 3, and so on (out of chronological order) based on form layouts etc., it would be a task to order these in database order (field 1, then field 2, then field 3, and so on) I have some substantial tables (150 or more fields) my question is it worth redoing the code (for say system performance, speed, durability,etc) to bring them into numeric order?
Any opinion will help.
thanx
I am coming to the end of my first substantial VB6 project with ADO and MSAccess 2002 and upon looking over the update code (in others updating the databases) I see that for various reasons the procedures I have written will update say field 1, then field 100, then field 3, and so on (out of chronological order) based on form layouts etc., it would be a task to order these in database order (field 1, then field 2, then field 3, and so on) I have some substantial tables (150 or more fields) my question is it worth redoing the code (for say system performance, speed, durability,etc) to bring them into numeric order?
Any opinion will help.
thanx
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
> What is or (are the characteristics of a "denormalized database")?
At the risk of sounding like Justice Potter Stewart, I have trouble articulating it, but I know it when I see it :)
For a quickie on normalization, see:
http://databases.about.com/od/specificproducts/a/normalization.htm
One thing to look for is whether you use multiple fields on a single column to express a certain attribute.
Without being able to see your schema, it would be tough for me to know whether your design is normalized
(good) or denormalized (bad). However, in typical normalized databases, it is rare for tables to have more
than about two dozen fields (and usually many fewer than that!).
Patrick
At the risk of sounding like Justice Potter Stewart, I have trouble articulating it, but I know it when I see it :)
For a quickie on normalization, see:
http://databases.about.com/od/specificproducts/a/normalization.htm
One thing to look for is whether you use multiple fields on a single column to express a certain attribute.
Without being able to see your schema, it would be tough for me to know whether your design is normalized
(good) or denormalized (bad). However, in typical normalized databases, it is rare for tables to have more
than about two dozen fields (and usually many fewer than that!).
Patrick
ASKER
OK, I will read and take note of the article-and Probaly learn something.
Thanx
Thanx
ASKER
design; if this is true, then that points to potential headaches down the road..."
Well I am suspecting a few headaches but I hope not to many, I will find out soon though.
What is or (are the characteristics of a "denormalized database")?