Welcome to the dBforums forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.

If you prefer not to see double-underlined words and corresponding ads, place your cursor
here for ContentLink opt out.

Go Back  dBforums > General > Database Concepts & Design > "Shared" or "Common" Table vs separate tables

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-08, 12:29
shroudedmoon shroudedmoon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
"Shared" or "Common" Table vs separate tables

I'm designing a database for a software management system for my company, and am running into a bit of trouble deciding whether a specific group of related functions should each write to their own table, or to a common table, with an identifier to determine which of the functions each row relates to.

Specifically, I am have a list of applications or documents that can be served from a website. As part of that list, there are various source points for each item. The source points fall into general categories (FTP, HTTP, NTFS, etc). The goal is that the "types" of source points are pluggable so that if one dept wants to serve data via HTTP and another wants HTTP and AFS, they can just add/remove or write the "plugins" needed to support their sourcing needs.

My question is whether it's more appropriate to have one "sourcepoints" table with an ID field that determines the "type" of sourcepoint. Or if it's more appropriate for each sourcepoint "type" to have its own sourcepoints table that stores only the sourcepoints for that "type".

I lean towards the second for portability reasons, but wanted to make sure that I wasn't trying to over think the situation.

Thanks,

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-08, 15:15
dportas dportas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 148
What are the attributes of each type? Are they the same in each case? If so then one would typically expect to see a single table for all types.

Please explain the "portability reasons" you refer to.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On