|
GUIDs for keys - ick!
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
I like GUIDs, but not for codes.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
I normally allways go for a status table, with number and text values per status. This allows for a greater range of statuses, but things also depend on how much human insight and or intervention required in processing that data. A single letter is always more readable, unless it is easily confused with other values or other domains.
|
|
|
|
|
Number with a status stable should allow for regionalization better.
Also, there may be confusion with what a letter stands for.
I - In progress or incomplete
C - Complete or cancelled
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer to keep state in separate table with an FK in whatever other tables need to reference the record state. So, we're really just dealing with ID's, and then you can put whatever short description, long description, "token" char/value, into the lookup table for the UI and it can be easily changed.
julian@giant wrote: so that they can easily be turned into an enum at the code end
Yuck. That locks your code with to your data/state. What if some day the user wants a new state, like "Cancelled", "Deleted", "Under Review", whatever? The code should look up all the current possible states from the database!
If you have code that does something specific because of state, put it in a stored procedure if possible on the DB side or a separate DLL for application specific stuff on the client side, unless it's a web page in which case the whole maintenance model is somewhat different.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: a new state, like "Cancelled", "Deleted", "Under Review",
That's an application change -- "new features".
Marc Clifton wrote: look up all the current possible states from the database
Yes, at compile time, and generate the enumeration therefrom.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
modified 1-Aug-14 12:15pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Yes, at compile time, and generate the enumeration therefrom.
Personally I don't like that approach, simply because it requires redistributing the code when configuration information in the database changes, and probably not worth arguing the pros and cons unless we find ourselves working together on a project. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Personally I don't like that approach
I do, but I haven't gotten to write such an application for some time now. 
Marc Clifton wrote: redistributing the code when configuration information in the database changes
I don't think we're talking about configuration changes. In cases where I need to allow such flexibility, I wouldn't use an enumeration.
Adding/removing such codes as are being discussed in this thread is a change to the application (a new feature perhaps) so of course it has to be redeployed.
I'll use enumerations when it makes sense to do so and I'll generate them from the database at compile time (or before).
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
It should be a simple key referring to another table that gives further information about what the status means. Whether you use an int or a char for that field is not particularly important.
|
|
|
|
|
I create separate child table with values & store the ID value in transaction table(Chris way).
Transaction Table
----------------
Work Status
----------------
Work1 O
Work2 O
Work3 I
Work4 C
---------------- Child Table
----------------
StatusID StatusDesc
----------------
O Open
I In-Progress
H Hold
C Closed
----------------
Long time ago, I have used bit datatype for 2 value columns(0 or 1). But later I had to change insert one more value based on requirement. After that, I never used bit datatype. Even for simple things(like Gender, Marital Staus) I use Child table like above.
Currently I use Char datatype so I could use many values. In number datatypes you can't store any characters & number values are not easy to recognize. If it's character datatype it's easy to recognize(Like C for Closed, O for Open & so on).
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server really needs to have an ENUM data type like MySQL.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm... no. 
Well, OK, it should, but no one should use it, not even with MySql. It's the wrong solution to a non-problem.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Well, OK, it should, but no one should use it, not even with MySql. It's the wrong solution to a non-problem.
Not at all. It's a solution to a problem that exists if you care about, say it with me now... per form mance.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: if you care about, say it with me now... per form mance.
I do, therefore I would never use that; I'd use a regular translation table just like I can have with any other database and only translate when it makes sense to do so -- which is basically only needed in reporting -- certainly not needed by an application, where it would likely lead to needless operations and therefore reduced performance.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I do, therefore I would never use that; I'd use a regular translation table just like I can have with any other database and only translate when it makes sense to do so
Translation tables are useful for a variable / large amount of data, but for a quick short constant that's only particular to one table and not reused ENUMS are great. They're more meaningful than a number and they can lead to less DB clutter. They shouldn't be abused, but they have their place.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: a variable / large amount of data
That doesn't sound like a translation table.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: quick short constant that's only particular to one table
Yeah, like that. Small amounts of static data; as with status codes, transaction types, etc.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: That doesn't sound like a translation table.
Using your terminology. I usually call them a look-up table, but when in Rome.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Yeah, like that. Small amounts of static data; as with status codes, transaction types, etc.
Which is my point, SQL Server needs a type for that. A good example would be like a three state Boolean. Sure you can use 0, 1, and 2 but something like F, T, and * is much more readable.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: look-up table
Same thing -- look up the translation for some code. They were called translation tables when I was using Oracle in the 90s.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: SQL Server needs a type for that
I see no need to have a special type and all the added functionality it entails; it's just another table.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: F, T, and * is much more readable
Well, that's what this whole thread is discussing, but it seems you have a camp all your own  , right in between the others -- insert a character but actually store a number.
I work with a lot of databases, including MySQL, and I prefer to stay within the common areas as much as possible, and I need a pretty good reason to use something that only one database supports.
So sure, just as SQL Server recently added sequences (which Oracle has had for longer than I can recall), it seems like a reasonable feature to add -- to increase that common area.
But this particular feature seems like it could hurt performance with very little benefit -- I don't see how it can perform better than the current way that translation/look-up tables are used, and may be (slightly) worse.
As with SELECT *, I think it's a boon to interactive users who can benefit from a way to reduce command length and complexity (primarily by eliminating JOINs), but not something that an application benefits from. You've probably heard the arguments against SELECT * in code.
Performance is also not as big a concern with interactive users writing ad hoc queries as it is with 24/7 enterprise applications.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Well, that's what this whole thread is discussing, but it seems you have a camp all your own
Because this is mainly MS devs that never used an ENUM in a DB before. Of course I'm going to be "in a camp all my own" here.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: But this particular feature seems like it could hurt performance with very little benefit
You must be bored and just want to argue. Seriously, do I have to explain why a join on a look-up table is slower?
You're just arguing man. I use your term, you argue with that on semantics. I explain my term, then you explain to me why you use yours, which tells me we were on the same page by using your term in the first place and you know what I meant. Seriously, do you really like to argue that much?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Of course I'm going to be "in a camp all my own"
I usually am too.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: do I have to explain why a join on a look-up table is slower?
Perhaps you could explain how it would implement the automatic translation/look-up without performing a JOIN behind the scenes?
Jeremy Falcon wrote: you know what I meant
You appeared to not know what I meant.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: do you really like to argue
No, but I want to be sure talking about the same thing. I think we are now.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Perhaps you could explain how it would implement the automatic translation/look-up without performing a JOIN behind the scenes?
There is no look-up with an ENUM data type. It's just a data type. Instead of using a number with no inherit value, with no referential data checking for a rogue number, etc. you can use strings. Not only is there no look-up, which is fast, this has so many advantages with automatic data checking / integrity (even in the case of a tri-state Boolean) it's unreal.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: You appeared to not know what I meant.
I did. And like I said, ENUM types fall short on variable length rows of values / types / whatever you want call them. And if the look-up needs to be re-used they fall short. But for a one-time small item, such as tri-state Boolean they're awesome.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I think we are now.
I've always been talking about this yo.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Numbers, definitely numbers. And not just any numbers but enumerated numbers
And preferrably even listed in a look up table and enforced with constraints.
|
|
|
|
|
I work in an open plan office, I'm 3 down a row of desks from the window.
Is it fair that I blame the bloke who sits closest to the window for the weather outside it?
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
What are you going to do if you get cold at the office?
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see why not, I've blamed someone I work with, that it is his fault it began raining at lunchtime because he went swimming 
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
