Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2

    Unanswered: Help for database schema

    Hello All,

    My project uses MS SQL server database and is not too big database (have aound 200 table).

    Now I have to create Database schema for my database as my project needs to be integrated with some other product.

    I don't know much about database schema and how to start with it.

    Can someone please give me some inputs on following:

    1) What exactly database schema should include?

    2) How should I start creating the schema for my database?

    3) Are there any tools for doing this?



    Thanks in advance

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    20,002
    1) CREATE TABLE statements, plus INSERT statements
    2) Enterprise Manager will script the CREATE TABLE statements (but not the INSERT statements, i'm afraid)
    3) tons of 'em -- do a search for SQL Server admin tools
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,313
    if your database is already built and you are looking to reverse engineer it, check out the link in my sig.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Quote Originally Posted by dbissues
    My project uses MS SQL server database and is not too big database (have aound 200 table).
    I've never seen a database with 200 tables that needed 200 tables. It is indicative of poor design.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by blindman
    I've never seen a database with 200 tables that needed 200 tables. It is indicative of poor design.
    That's a bit absolute isn't it?

    EDIT - misinterpreted indicative on my first pass.
    Last edited by pootle flump; 03-17-07 at 18:42.
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holmestrand, Norway
    Posts
    332
    Well, he states my project, and a one mans project with 200 tables? Well that clearly indicates poor design.
    Ole Kristian Velstadbråten Bangås - Virinco - MSSQL.no - Facebook - Twitter

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Over egging it a bit aren't you? Do you even know what he is modelling?

    BTW - I doubt (but do not know) that this has been his project from inception. I suspect it is purchased\ inherited. But as I say I don't know so I won't go so far as to say it is "clearly indicated".
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    20,002
    here's a project i worked on (as the sole data modeller) for an insurance company

    i'm happy to report that it came in at just under 200 tables

    thank $deity, eh, because i know now that as soon as it goes over the 200 table limit, it's b0rked
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails weedatamodel.gif  
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holmestrand, Norway
    Posts
    332
    Yeah, I know about data modelling. And I do know that a project with some 200 tables is quite complex, and I do think that more than one person should be involved in the data modelling. In smaller projects, one man can do the whole job, but in projects of the size we are talking about here, I would definitely not be comfortable as the only modeller. With so high complexity i feel pretty safe when I state that the project should involve at least two persons working as a team. One single man increases the chance of some issues being overlooked.

    Edit: As I understand the word indicates, it does not mean it has to be that way, just that it's very likely. If you would use a different word for this, please let me know, as English is not my native language
    Last edited by roac; 03-17-07 at 20:09.
    Ole Kristian Velstadbråten Bangås - Virinco - MSSQL.no - Facebook - Twitter

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    That's a bit absolute isn't it?
    I have absolutely never seen a 200 table database that was a good design. I'm merely stating a fact.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2

    Comments

    Thanks for all your comments.

    Ya i do agree that its a poor design.

    Anyways I have created the schema for the DB.

    Thanks.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    India
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by dbissues
    Ya i do agree that its a poor design.
    but how and why do u all of a sudden agree that the design was poor?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Well, he has the advantage of being able to look at it.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •