| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
tomasalsbro
Average Member
Sweden
818 Posts |
 Posted - 28 March 2001 : 06:32:57
|
When analysing the Snitz_Forums_2000.mdb in Access 2000 Analyser tool, it seems that identical data is stored in more then one place. This could cause problem ( and I think it has for me when implementing guestbook v3.)
I convert the Snitz_Forums_2000.mdb to latest version (Access 2000) and run the databas through the Ananlyser Tools. The result was that data is stored in more than one table in the databas.
Did I misunderstod the message or???
The picture above shows what the Access analyser suggest. It's in Swedish but anyone familiar with Access should probably recogise it.
Cheers / Tomas
Edited by - tomasalsbro on 28 March 2001 07:56:57 |
|
|
gor
Retired Admin
Netherlands
5511 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2001 : 10:03:21
|
Thomas,
You are correct, but this is intentional and I think only in two tables.
If you look at the TOPIC and the REPLY table, you'll see that not only the FORUM_ID but also the CAT_ID is stored there.
Since the CAT_ID allready is stored in the FORUM table, you wouldn't need that.
In the case of the REPLY table, storing the TOPIC_ID that the REPLY_ID belongs to would be enough, cause with that TOPIC_ID you could retrieve the FORUM_ID in the table TOPICS and with the FORUM_ID you could retrieve the CAT_ID in the table FORUMS.
But that would also mean that if you wanted to know the CAT_ID of a reply, you would need the REPLY table, the TOPIC table AND the FORUM table.
Since these are only numeric values, not large text fields, that are always controlled by the script (and not by humans), this isn't considered a problem. Because it doesn't cause a huge amount of extra data stored and the chances of errors occuring during update etc. are minimal (except ofcourse when we make an error).
Same goes for the relationships you can add in Access and MS SQL Server.
We can do without them. You can do the same things just using code, you just have to code it a bit better then when you can rely on relationships to do integrety checking and/or cascading deletes.
MySql doesn't support relationships, so having the code take care of it came in handy when we ported the forums to work on MySql.
Pierre |
 |
|
|
tomasalsbro
Average Member
Sweden
818 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2001 : 14:46:31
|
Hi Pierre,
Ok, I think I understand. But ins't that due to compability issues with mySQL?
In a clean Access built databas that isn't the matter (I guess), because there you use the relationsships between the different tables in your databas.
I heard from a Swedish user at:
http://www.alltomhundar.com/ that his databas was about 18 Mb big! and he use only the standard Snitz Forum 2000 board without any Mods. His site counts more then 100.000 visiters per mounth. He published the forum late january this year!
The problem with multiple storing as you discribe it is the risk of getting conflicts - for example due to a single misspelling.
If you use the relations capasity of Access, you wouldn't need multiple storing.
I have found myself in big trouble with my little databas, and I only use guestbook version 3 as Mod upon a standard Snitz Forum 2000.
Another question:
I see that the sorting of the databas is in Netherland Language (what ever that is). And that the databas isn't fully accepted of my Access 2000 SR1 version. It suggest me to convert it. What do you suggest? It will then change sorting table to Swedish I suppose.
Cheers / Tomas
Edited by - tomasalsbro on 28 March 2001 14:49:23 |
|
|
|
gor
Retired Admin
Netherlands
5511 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2001 : 16:10:21
|
Tomas,
quote:
Ok, I think I understand. But ins't that due to compability issues with mySQL?
In a clean Access built databas that isn't the matter (I guess), because there you use the relationsships between the different tables in your databas.
Well...we left the relationships in the Access database, but don't rely on them.
quote:
I heard from a Swedish user at:
http://www.alltomhundar.com/ that his databas was about 18 Mb big! and he use only the standard Snitz Forum 2000 board without any Mods. His site counts more then 100.000 visiters per mounth. He published the forum late january this year!
The problem with multiple storing as you discribe it is the risk of getting conflicts - for example due to a single misspelling.
If you use the relations capasity of Access, you wouldn't need multiple storing.
I looked at his site, but there is no Snitz Forum there !
The visitor-count doesn't mean much, if you have a lot of messages in your database, yes, then it becomes bigger. But even then the extra size caused by the extra field isn't what is causing the database to grow big.
quote:
Another question:
I see that the sorting of the databas is in Netherland Language (what ever that is). And that the databas isn't fully accepted of my Access 2000 SR1 version. It suggest me to convert it. What do you suggest? It will then change sorting table to Swedish I suppose.
 Take a look at the country-name listed in this reply.
It probably means that because I edited the database with my Dutch Access 97 version (that is the only version I've got), that gets stored in the database.
If you post this in the bugs forums, Mike can make sure he opens and edits the database that is included in the zip-file so that it is set to US-Englisch Language again.
Converting the database to Access 2000 shouldn't be a problem, it still works in combination with the forums.
Pierre |
|
|
|
tomasalsbro
Average Member
Sweden
818 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2001 : 17:05:38
|
Sorry Pierre!
I forgot that you couldn't read or understand the royal language of Swedish!
Here is the forum link:
http://www.alltomhundar.com/data/forum/
By the way - the site is about dogs - "hund"=dog, "hundar"=dogs, "allt om hundar"=everything about dogs.
Now you know some Swedish!
(My databas went corrupt after installing the guestbook v3.)
Tomas
Edited by - tomasalsbro on 28 March 2001 17:24:44 |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2001 : 17:55:31
|
tomasalsboro,
I think your problems and corruption are not related to what you are discussing here, relying on accesses relationships for data integrity, or code, and or duplicating fields in different tables, should not cause you any problems. it is standard practice to duplicate some fields especially key fields, for doing foriegn key lookups, any two tables which share a relationship, should share atleast one field in common. duplicating other fields is also useful if it saves linking to another table just to extract a single value.
None of this should be causing you a problem.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
