public inbox for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tvali <qtvali@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:24:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cea53e3c0603140824o5885c43al@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4416E6F1.8090904@gebeco.de>

I didnt think of case Item1, Item2, Item3.

I thought of cases, for example, where i use Id field as TableName and
IdInThatTable, where TableName shows, which table this IdInThatTable
points and so on. I dont use, too, Item1/2/3 :) I just use tables
sometimes in a more generalized form, where it's hard to say from
table name or fields, what it is supposed to contain, as it contains
different things in different cases -- therefore allowing me to make
more functionality to general datastructures rather than writing
specific tables with specific functions. Anyway, this is an example --
i just think that normalizing makes it so that there is 1 way to do
things, but i like to rethink any specific case (and in some cases,
normalized table just appears best to me, but not because it's
normalized). Nothing more. Anyway, i think that this is not a topic to
discuss in this list :) I think that db-app otimizations was best
argument ever possible on side of normalization -- others are those,
which will appear to me, too, but i havent much thought about which
db's are optimized to which structures -- and this seems so that as
normalization is in, any engines probably really are optimized for
that.

2006/3/14, Johannes Fahrenkrug <jfa@gebeco.de>:
> tvali wrote:
>
> >I will consider what you sayd about db app design.
> >
> >Anyway, i usually try to keep tables more dynamic and look at task at
> >hand, trying to make tables specially for it. When i tested
> >normalizing, i got about 60 tables where i had 5 without normalizing.
> >
> >
> I'm not a Gentoo dev, but a programmer who deals with software and db
> design issues every day.
> Normalizing your data structures keeps them - and the apps that use them
> - flexible.
>
> Of course a table with fields like "customernr, customername, item1,
> item2, item3" is easier to create and smaller
> than one table for the customers and one for items. But what if there's
> a 4th and a 5th item? You have to change
> your table and every place in your app that uses it (which should only
> be one).
>
> I assume you're also not too fond of design patterns because some
> require you to create 5 classes for something you could do with one ;-)...
>
> - Johannes.
>
>
> --
> gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
tvali
(e-mail: "qtvali@gmail.com"; msn: "qtvali@gmail.com";
icq: "317-492-912")

Ühe eesti internetifirma lehel kohtasin tsitaati:
If you don't do it excellently, dont do it at all. Because if it's not
excellent, it won't be profitable or fun, and if you're not in
business for fun or profit, what the hell are you doing here?
Robert Townsend

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



  reply	other threads:[~2006-03-14 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-14 11:02 [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better tvali
2006-03-14 11:10 ` Simon Stelling
2006-03-14 11:24   ` tvali
2006-03-14 11:53     ` tvali
2006-03-14 12:14       ` tvali
2006-03-14 13:19         ` Devon Miller
2006-03-14 13:25           ` tvali
2006-03-14 13:50             ` tvali
2006-03-14 14:33               ` tvali
2006-03-14 15:04                 ` Brian
2006-03-14 15:32                   ` tvali
2006-03-14 16:21                     ` Brian
2006-03-15  0:33                 ` esearch integration [was Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better] Brian Harring
2006-03-15 14:20                   ` tvali
2006-03-15 14:21                     ` tvali
2006-03-15  0:37               ` sync suggestions " Brian Harring
2006-03-15 14:18                 ` tvali
2006-03-14 13:21         ` [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better tvali
2006-03-14 13:35           ` Marius Mauch
2006-03-14 14:52             ` tvali
2006-03-15  0:29               ` sql based cache [was Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better] Brian Harring
2006-03-14 14:44           ` [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better Alec Warner
2006-03-14 15:03             ` tvali
2006-03-14 15:53               ` Johannes Fahrenkrug
2006-03-14 16:24                 ` tvali [this message]
2006-03-14 13:50       ` Marius Mauch
2006-03-14 15:18         ` solar
2006-03-14 16:35           ` tvali
2006-03-14 18:26             ` tvali
2006-03-14 18:30               ` Grant Goodyear
2006-03-14 18:46                 ` tvali
2006-03-14 18:49                   ` Grant Goodyear
2006-03-14 14:50   ` felix
2006-03-14 13:44 ` Marius Mauch

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=cea53e3c0603140824o5885c43al@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=qtvali@gmail.com \
    --cc=gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox