Reply to thread

Message

Exactly. And it is now much faster as a consequence of designing the database to make optimal use the database engine. This is how relational databases are supposed to work - not with fields containing iterations of string data; not to mention joining tables using string columns rather than numbers. The size issue isn't irrelevant though. Index size is critical to optimal performance. When you have string primary keys you force indexes to be far larger than indexes over number fields. All relational database engines are designed to access numeric indexes far more quickly than string indexes. This is really basic stuff.

I am not trying persuade anyone to do anything they don't want. I am only offering an alternative that provides multi-user capability and optimal database design and performance. I gain nothing either way and I will support what I develop if I am asked to.

I now have a system that has run error free for weeks. It's a win-win for me and an easy life from now on if no-one else is interested. I will help if asked.

Tony

<blockquote data-quote="Anthony Vaughan" data-source="post: 1287897" data-attributes="member: 153283">Exactly. And it is now much faster as a consequence of designing the database to make optimal use the database engine. This is how relational databases are supposed to work - not with fields containing iterations of string data; not to mention joining tables using string columns rather than numbers. The size issue isn't irrelevant though. Index size is critical to optimal performance. When you have string primary keys you force indexes to be far larger than indexes over number fields. All relational database engines are designed to access numeric indexes far more quickly than string indexes. This is really basic stuff.I am not trying persuade anyone to do anything they don't want. I am only offering an alternative that provides multi-user capability and optimal database design and performance. I gain nothing either way and I will support what I develop if I am asked to. I now have a system that has run error free for weeks. It's a win-win for me and an easy life from now on if no-one else is interested. I will help if asked.Tony</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anthony Vaughan, post: 1287897, member: 153283"] Exactly. And it is now much faster as a consequence of designing the database to make optimal use the database engine. This is how relational databases are supposed to work - not with fields containing iterations of string data; not to mention joining tables using string columns rather than numbers. The size issue isn't irrelevant though. Index size is critical to optimal performance. When you have string primary keys you force indexes to be far larger than indexes over number fields. All relational database engines are designed to access numeric indexes far more quickly than string indexes. This is really basic stuff. I am not trying persuade anyone to do anything they don't want. I am only offering an alternative that provides multi-user capability and optimal database design and performance. I gain nothing either way and I will support what I develop if I am asked to. I now have a system that has run error free for weeks. It's a win-win for me and an easy life from now on if no-one else is interested. I will help if asked. Tony [/QUOTE]