Charlotte Foust
cfoust at infostatsystems.com
Fri Jul 20 10:51:20 CDT 2007
I've always been interested in theater and stage productions. Sally Rand performed in some of Billy Rose's productions. I think she even danced at a World's Fair. In any event I saw a publicity photo of her once, with a thin strip of Sally showing between two enormouse ostrich feather fans. I assume she wasn't ticklish! LOL Charlotte Foust -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:39 AM 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