Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
aozgec
Starting Member
5 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-04-12 : 20:39:46
|
| I wonder if it costs too much process to use a tableA for some of the columns of tableB. e.g. if I had a table with fields like thisName,surnamethere would be no problem..but what if I want keep multiple records for the items in the TableAwould be wise to crate a tbale with recordId of the orijinal record.. I wonder if creating multiple tables for recodrs of a tableBan example of the record would be like Name----Surname----Hobies.John Smnith fishing. futbol. |
|
|
Amethystium
Aged Yak Warrior
701 Posts |
Posted - 2004-04-13 : 07:01:45
|
| Yes, you're thinking is quite right but I don't think you're using the correct approach.Don't think in terms of cost of performance for now. Get your ideas together and once you've got that sorted out, read the article in the link below and follow the guidelines!http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/1549781Good luck.________________Make love not war! |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
performance??