So how about creating a sys table too:
SYS sys_id
ZKCOST sys_id, zkcost_id, zkcost_value
and
ZPRECMPL sys_id, zprecmpl_id, zprecmpl_value
This gives you the flexibility to expand to as many "columns" for
ZPRECMPL as you want. The bottom line is, I think it would be much
more efficient storage to determine a way to turn your variable number
of columns into rows of a value table.
For example, I have a web site for role playing games. Since each
game has different attributes for the characters you play, I need a
flexible way to define the list of attributes and then allow people to
enter the values of those attributes. Below is a simplified version
of my table structure:
attribute attribute_id (PK), attribute_name
character character_id (PK), character_name
character_attribute character_attribute_id (PK), character_id (FK), attribute_id (FK), value
It is a little different than your problem but demonstrates how a
variable number of columns (in this case a variable number of
attributes for a character) can be stored with one row representing
each column.
Because I don't understand the context of your problem as well as you
do, you will probably have to determine how to tweak this to meet your
needs. But I think, from the information you have provided, that this
"pivoted" table approach will work for you.
-Aaron
On 6/13/06, Phillip Smith <phillips@weatherbeeta.com.au> wrote:
> Not quite... ZKCOST and ZPRECMPL are two completely different things. They
> have no relation except they're both stored in the SYS table in D3.
>
> If we put it in a tree:
> SYS
> |
> +- ZKCOST
> | \- <value>
> |
> +- ZPRECMPL
> | +- <value>
> | +- <value>
> | +- <value>
> | \- <value>
>
> or table:
> SYS
> +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | ZKCOST | <value> | | | |
> | ZPRECMPL | <value> | <value> | <value> | <value> |
> +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
