Search results
Splitting data into related tables. So far, we've just been working with one table at a time, and seeing what interesting data we can select out of that table. But actually, most of the time, we have our data distributed across multiple tables, and those tables are "related" to each other in some way. For example, let's say we have a table for ...
- Here's a good discussion: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9774715/mysql-multiple-tables-or-one-table-with-many-columns Basically a single table...
- These are all good questions. It shows you're really thinking about this. I like that. 1. SQL itself is not a programming language. It's a Query La...
- Lots of good answers here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2577174/join-vs-sub-query This seems to be a hot issue around the SQL campfire.
- KhanAcademy says in the introduction to this unit that they use SQLite, which is one particular version. The similarities between versions are grea...
- There is a "SYSTEM" database that is maintained by database system itself, that is a collection of tables containing metadata about the "USER" data...
- Camacho, There is a course dedicated to games: https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-programming/programming-games-visualizations
- Typically, in a database system, each table will represent a different entity - students, classrooms, courses - or it will be a a bridge table (whi...
- Searching for it might be a bit slower, but writing the data may be quicker because you can omit duplicate data. Updating data will be even quicker...
- It's possible for books to have the same title and same author. Or you may need to track revisions of a book to identify specific editions or versi...
May 22, 2017 · Unless your userbase includes the Queen or Paddington Bear, a user has just one birthday, so that should be an attribute of the USERS table. Things which have a one-to-many relationship should be in separate tables. So, if a user can have multiple privacy settings by all means split them out. Splitting one table into several tables can make ...
- Generally it is a good idea to put things which have a one-to-one relationship in the same table. Unless your userbase includes the Queen or Paddin...
- This would be a situation for analysis. When you find that a lot of the fields in such a table are NULLs, and can be grouped together (eg. UserCon...
- Retrieving a row is more expensive if it has many columns, especially if you usually need just some of the fields. Also, hosting stuff such as the...
May 7, 2020 · 1. Having a lot of columns in a single table instead of spreading them over multiple normalized tables isn't necessarily bad design. There are many cases where this might improve performance a lot. Instead of splitting it into multiple tables you could consider to provide views on it which makes some BL aspects easier to handle. – πάντα ...
Jun 5, 2013 · Another thing to consider in deciding to split the tables or not is the width of the table if you put them all in one table. Many databases will allow you to define a table where the total length of all the fields is wider than the total record length allowed. You cannot however, put data into a record that would exceed the width.
One solution to this problem is to split the data into multiple tables and define relationships between those tables. This is the approach used in relational databases like SQL Server. For example, a database that you import might represent order data by using three related tables: Customers
Nov 10, 2022 · There are lots more users related table ( the total is around 12 ). Now all of these tables has one-to-one relationship so you could just combine all of it into one big 'users' table with lots of columns. We are currently in the process of migrating the whole app & restructuring the db itself ( normalization, remove redundant column, etc ).
People also ask
Should I split data into multiple related tables?
Should I split a table into different tables?
What if I separate data into 2 tables?
Is a single table better than a multiple table?
However, I strongly agree with Aaron Bertrand that you are creating inefficiencies, possibly on a massive scale. SQL is much better at searching/filtering data than Excel. You should, at the very least, consider using any parts of the search to filter the data in SQL BEFORE you pull it down to Excel, that will reduce the amount of data.
