![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
| |||
| |||
|
|
mowi... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote: Frank's suggestion was a natural and a good one. And yes, I know about modeling and normalization. Problem is that a pannel decided that it be done as specified above. There are already too many tables in the database already. Oh no! Democracy in database design: "a panel decided..." Just gimme back my mini's and my 911 CRT, and the days I decided what to automate, and how and when and all users had to do was worship me. Oh, and they could be allowed to use the product every now and then - if I was in a good mood. What you are doing is creating a non-scalable heap of crap, that can simply and elegantly be resolved by normalization. I'd demand signatures of the committee under a statement, that no Oracle developer, DBA, or (external) consultant is ever going to be held responsible for this... "design" -- Regards, Frank van Bortel Top-posting is one way to shut me up... |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Nov 21, 7:45 pm, Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bor... (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: mowi... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote: Frank's suggestion was a natural and a good one. And yes, I know about modeling and normalization. Problem is that a pannel decided that it be done as specified above. There are already too many tables in the database already. Oh no! Democracy in database design: "a panel decided..." Just gimme back my mini's and my 911 CRT, and the days I decided what to automate, and how and when and all users had to do was worship me. Oh, and they could be allowed to use the product every now and then - if I was in a good mood. What you are doing is creating a non-scalable heap of crap, that can simply and elegantly be resolved by normalization. I'd demand signatures of the committee under a statement, that no Oracle developer, DBA, or (external) consultant is ever going to be held responsible for this... "design" -- Regards, Frank van Bortel Top-posting is one way to shut me up... Frank, you're absolutely right. In my case, however, design is done by other people and different aspects of development by others. And unfortunately, I'm not in a position to demand anything. |
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
mowi... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote: This, still, is using a relational database as a relational database. The only new thing here is that the relation has been specialized at the column level; an aspect not currently explicitly supported by Oracle. Perhaps you missed this:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=362384.362685 -- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
Problem is that a pannel decided that it be done as specified above. There are already too many tables in the database already. |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
#27
| |||
| |||
|
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi All, I solved the puzzle buy using two cursors. One cursor fetched all records that equaled :New.ISBN and the other fetched records in the periodical# column that equaled :New.periodical#_Owner. After that, I used a conditional check to ensure that if the ISBN being entered in the table already existed then periodical#_Owner was to be provided and that it had to be equal an existing periodical#. The trigger is working fine and I'm happy with it. Thanks to you all for your suggestions and helpful criticism; special thanks to David and Daniel. Regards, Mark |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |