Club members: Future of the track record

Actually I hate it. I'm not sure what it is that makes something relatively simple the domain of a small set of gurus. I guess it's because SQL is so not sexy.

It's all in the pre-planning of the DB i guess. But believe me, I know your pain. I would be interested in taking a look at your tables sometime to see how it all works. Then again, if I wanted to take the initiative, I could download POP forums and look for myself... but that would end up with no insight on the coaster DB currently in discussion.

^^ LOL, the version of SQL we were using only a month ago wasn't TOO bad....the newer version we just had forced down our throats, however....makes me want to vomit large chunks....and NOT chunks of data! ;)

The tables on everything here now are not that complicated. They aren't always queried efficiently though, and that's why I get slow downs now and then. But consider that it's all almost four years old, and even that was derived from something older. I had no idea what I was doing back then.

Even the forum is getting its schema thrown away, which means I'll have to write something to convert the gig or so of data. That's going to suck, but I'm tired of being constrained to the old stuff.

My track record is pretty pathetic. Go for it. ;)

Database design is easy. GOOD database design, with well-normalized data (*) can be trickier.

(*) -- assuming one is using relational databases, that is. I've seen too many "databases" that were just designed with the flat model, which is fine for some apps but in general can be much improved upon...

*** Edited 10/17/2006 12:57:28 AM UTC by GregLeg***

^ You mean there's people working out in the real world with ONE database table? Man, I thought MY job was too easy! ;)

Well, until SQL 2005 came along....I'll catch up....eventually... :)
*** Edited 10/17/2006 2:56:10 AM UTC by rollergator***

Not a problem, delete away.