Mike Rylander wrote:
>> > This is just not true. Lets take the MARC standard. Each field
>> > has a one to many relationship with its subfields. In a relational
>> > database this *could be* modeled with two tables.
>> Yes, it "could". Again, this must in many cases be ruled out because
>> of inefficiency and the sheer bulk of the tables you end up with.
>
>
> I see 3 tables there: record, tag and subfield.
>
Did you try? And get something useful?
>
>> > Again, a relational database can contain keyword indexes either
>> > through full text indexing a column or using appropriate business
>> > logic and/or a stored procedures to shred the information and
>> > store the data in a table.
>> >
>> Again, who does it, and why not?
>
>
> Evergreen, for one. :)
>
Where can I see it?
B. Eversberg
Received on Thu Jun 22 2006 - 06:44:01 EDT