Dennis Veatch wrote:
>On Saturday 10 January 2004 04:38 pm, you wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>In my opinion, if there are relations between each parts, do only one
>>database (only one connection needed). In the other case do a database
>>for each separate part (like this no risk of bad manipulation).
>>
>>Bruno
>>
>>
>
>Yes there will be relations with nearly all if not all of the parts.
>
>One thing I forgot to mention, this will be plugged into postgis. At the
>minimum I envision customers and well logs being used by postgis or vise
>versa.
>
>
>
>
>>Dennis Veatch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In creating a database I am trying to determine which method is the better
>>>way to go. No, I do not know what "better way" means, novice is the key,
>>>hence this post.
>>>
>>>The basic question is, what point(s) are used to determine there are
>>>enough tables and another database should be created. Hmm, well let me
>>>say it this way.
>>>
>>>Here are briefly (for the most part) the things I want in a database;
>>>
>>>1. customers - the usual stuff, names, addresses, etc.
>>>2. well logs - depth of water wells, location (latitude/longitude as well
>>>as the normal address), layers drilled through, etc.
>>>3. excavator work - hourly rate, length of dig, etc.
>>>3. plumbing - items used on project, part cost, etc
>>>4. septic work - installation of septic tanks, address, cost, etc
>>>5. water softeners - customer name, is it a rental or not
>>>6. supplies/parts - inventory type stuff.
>>>
>>>The basic decision here is, do I put all this into one database with a
>>>bunch of table? Or would it make more sense to separate it out? If there
>>>are separate databases will it prevent linking tables between the two?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Bruno LEVEQUE
System Engineer
SARL NET6D
bruno.leveque@net6d.com
http://www.net6d.com
