Subject:
|
Re: Unique keys for sets
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 05:55:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
lpieniazek@novera.com (Larry Pieniazek) wrote in
<386943AA.328BCF33@voyager.net>:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.admin.database, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
>
> > > Separate column please, don't make me parse it out of an existing
> > > one.. that's my opinion.
> >
> > Oya definitely. I didn't mean overwriting one of the existing ones,
> > sorry for the confusion. There are 8 columns now, so the new one
> > would make sense either at 1 (first), 2 (first), or 9 (last). IMHO,
> > it makes the most sense in column 1, but I don't know how that might
> > disrupt current behaviors of code importing the table. If no one
> > screams to the contrary, I'll stuff it in column 1 and push the
> > current columns 1-8 over to columns 2-9.
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Not a scream, just a squeak.
>
> Consider 9, as in last and keep it last if you add something else. It
> has less useful info to most readers and thus should be in the region
> the eye reads last.
If the key you're talking about is in the form of "8880-1", then I think
column 1 makes sense. I would actually be quite happy with that as a
solution for a couple of reasons:
- In my spreadsheet, I put "8880" in column A. Column B then
automatically changes to "Super Car", and column C picks up the
piece count, both referencing the Pause data stored in another
worksheet. If "Super Car" doesn't look like the right name,
("no, this isn't the Super Car, this is the Super Refrigerator
that has the same set number..."), then I'd type 8880-2, 8880-3
and so on until I hit the right key. That's easier than going
to dig through the DB looking for the actual key.
- In on-line discussions, if someone says "that's set 8880", someone
can say "do you mean 8880-1 or 8880-2"? In reality, I'm sure we'd
say "do you mean the Super Car", but for the older sets in the 60s
and 70s, the addition of the number may be more helpful than the
name since most of us aren't conversant with names of those sets.
Those are specific examples of a general situation I'm thinking of,
where we would simply use "the pause ID" to disambiguate sets with
the same number.
On the other hand, if it's the not-meant-for-humans style key, then
I'd agree with Larry and slip it outside to column 9. I like the
strategy you discussed over in brictionary. It makes a lot of sense.
And if you do that, I'll have to rethink my spreadsheet... hmm. I've
been pondering shifting it into a real DB, maybe this will push me
over the edge.
Thanks for doing this. I'll see how this goes, and if it turns out
I still have to write some scripts to massage the data, I'll post them.
Sounds like others might find it handy.
-r'm
Remy Evard
Linux Supercomputing Clusterhead by day, AFOL by late night.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Unique keys for sets
|
| (...) Not a scream, just a squeak. Consider 9, as in last and keep it last if you add something else. It has less useful info to most readers and thus should be in the region the eye reads last. (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
