[AccessD] One-to-One relationships

Max Sherman max at sherman.org.uk
Fri Jul 20 10:54:54 CDT 2007


Can we take all this sort of rubbish off-line please.  There is enough stuff
coming through without having to wade through this sort of nonsense.  Can
we please stick to VBA.
Thanks
Max
 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 4:39 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] One-to-One relationships

Charlotte, and how do you know all this?  I can understand Arthur having
this prurient interest, but you? 

Inquiring minds want to know.  ;-)

John W. Colby
Colby Consulting
www.ColbyConsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte Foust
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] One-to-One relationships

What, "Mrs Henderson Presents" wasn't international enough for you?  LOL

Charlotte 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:22 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] One-to-One relationships

Wow! I used the term "stripper" because I deferred to the international
character of this list, but you're entirely correct! Applause to you from
here, Charlotte. You are sooo correct.

On 7/20/07, Charlotte Foust <cfoust at infostatsystems.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, she was a fan dancer, which is different from a stripper, 
> since they start out without much on and wave the fans around to 
> expose bits at a time.  She was quite famous in her time.
>
> Charlotte Foust
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur 
> Fuller
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 6:24 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] One-to-One relationships
>
> I would respectfully suggest that you're overlooking something in your

> analysis, Susan, but to observe it you need millions of rows in the 
> given table. But suppose that you have a table called Customers, which

> as previously suggested in this thread might include both corporations

> and persons. The first rule of database development is performance, 
> above all other considerations. Therefore one ought to identify the 
> columns of immediate interest (CustomerID, CustomerName, etc.) and 
> store those in a single table, pushing all the other attributes to one

> or more related tables with a 1:1 relationship. This way, I can search

> a small table with multiple indexes very quickly, and not bother with 
> fetching the rest of the data until you explicitly request it, at 
> which point it would be a lightning-quick sproc that receives a 
> CustomerID and sends back the rest of the data. If you really want to 
> push the performance button, then you won't return a rowset either.
> Instead you'll declare as many parameters as you have columns of 
> interest, and declare them all Output parameters. When you want 
> exactly one record, that's the quickest method.
>
> I hope I didn't obscure the point here. The point is what I call the 
> Sally Rand principle. (You might have to be older than even I to 
> understand the reference -- she was a famous stripper, back when 
> stripping meant that you still retained most of your clothes.) Her 
> point was, show them as little as possible to still maintain their
interest.
> That's my motto in terms of database design. Never open an entire
table.
> Show them only enough to pique their curiosity, as it were.
>
> On 7/20/07, Susan Harkins <ssharkins at setel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, if it has a purpose. A one-to-one relationship almost always 
> > flows from need rather from the data itself. If you need to force a 
> > one-to-one, I'd say do it. However, if there's no business rule 
> > saying, "there can be only one..." it might be unnecessary, even if 
> > the data is presenting that picture right now. Listen to the data.
> >
> > Susan H.
> >
> > Is there any purpose/advantage in creating a one-to-one relationship

> > in a database (e.g., CustomerId and CustomerName in one table and 
> > all the other customer data (e.g., sex, address,  phone, etc) in 
> > another
> table?
> >
> >
> > --
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list