|
database
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
multiple blobA table has a text field which provides content on a web page.
If the web content was to be regionalised, what would be the pros/cons of having a text field for each region in the same record? Thanks Soc. The main downside IMHO would be a total loss of scalability. Why not just use
the ntext datatype? That way you can just keep all in one column. Look up use of unicode data types in Books Online. ML How would you keep them all in one column? The ntext datatype only allows
unicode characters, not special regionlization (unless I am about to learn something cool :) -- Show quote---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/ SQL Server MVP "Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing." (Oscar Wilde) "ML" <M*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:73A4CA11-1D30-4C0E-92D1-A72187B07E62@microsoft.com... > The main downside IMHO would be a total loss of scalability. Why not just > use > the ntext datatype? That way you can just keep all in one column. Look up > use > of unicode data types in Books Online. > > > ML That's not exactly what I meant, but hey, why not?
ItemID : LanguageID : Text Or did you mean all of them in one row? Now, that even I can't imagine. :) No, wait... I can! If all they're inside an XML. But that's just silly, right? E.g. ItemID : XML Item Text BookTitle <values> <value language="english">A summer night's dream</value> <value language="Deutsch">Ein sommer Nachts Traum</value> </values> ML I didn't figure it was really what you meant. But you are right, you could
use XML, depending on the actual needs. -- Show quote---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/ SQL Server MVP "Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing." (Oscar Wilde) "ML" <M*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:AE81E10E-DBEF-4FD7-B5E6-38C9AA2CF27A@microsoft.com... > That's not exactly what I meant, but hey, why not? > > ItemID : LanguageID : Text > > Or did you mean all of them in one row? Now, that even I can't imagine. :) > > No, wait... I can! If all they're inside an XML. But that's just silly, > right? > E.g. ItemID : XML > > Item Text > BookTitle <values> > <value language="english">A summer night's > dream</value> > <value language="Deutsch">Ein sommer Nachts > Traum</value> > </values> > > > ML On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:12:16 +0100, soc wrote:
>A table has a text field which provides content on a web page. Hi Soc,> >If the web content was to be regionalised, what would be the pros/cons of >having a text field for each region in the same record? >Thanks Soc. > Pros: none that I can think of. Cons: not normalised, not scalable. Better to have an extra table, with foreign key to the main table, language code plus this foreign key as the primary key and the translated contents as the third column. Best, Hugo -- (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address) Thanks all.
I agree with the separate table option.... Show quote "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message news:4804i1pd5an6r5jl1m42rttos800j7sapt@4ax.com... > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:12:16 +0100, soc wrote: > >>A table has a text field which provides content on a web page. >> >>If the web content was to be regionalised, what would be the pros/cons of >>having a text field for each region in the same record? >>Thanks Soc. >> > > Hi Soc, > > Pros: none that I can think of. > > Cons: not normalised, not scalable. > > Better to have an extra table, with foreign key to the main table, > language code plus this foreign key as the primary key and the > translated contents as the third column. > > Best, Hugo > -- > > (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address) >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics