Re: Need SQL Server Temp Table equivalent (challenge!)

Jim Kennedy wrote:

> "Kin Ng" <kin_ng5_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d5b3f600.0307261735.798ec6e8_at_posting.google.com...
> > Perhaps I can illustrate this idea with an example.
> >
> > A typical Product's relation design may include the product master,
> > Brand, Subbrand, Brand Extension etc. What happens if we don't define
> > Brand, Subbrand, Brand Extension etc but instead create a structure
> > such that these kind of relationships can be "soft coded" so to speak.
> > I have always felt that the relation model tend to represent what is
> > current and lacks the flexibility of self-changing, sort of like the
> > OS's self tuning...That was the idea of our design. Let's face it,
> > the pace of change in the current business world is fast and changing
> > a DB model is slow, relatively speaking.
>
> So you don't have time to do it right, but time to instead redo it. I say
> BS that the business world is changing so fast that the model can't keep up.
> Hogwash! Mental Masturbation is more like it. (or ignorance of how to do
> correct data modeling) People have been doing these things for decades -
> BOMs, inventory systems, etc. You are not doing anything really new, just
> trying to make it more complex than necessary. You are creating a real mess
> for yourself; a very unscalable, difficult to use mess. There are ways to
> accomplish flexibility correctly. This is not one of them.
>
> Jim

I'd not have used your words ... but I absolutely concur with your message. ;-)

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)