From: molsson_NO_SPAM@vip.cybercity.dk   
      
   "Hans Forbrich"  wrote in message   
   news:ahFdc.27891$J56.12879@edtnps89...   
   > /motten wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > > display data for an arbitirary (spelling?)  number of surverys each   
   >   
   > (in this group, anyone who watches for spelling is itching for a heart   
   > attack!)   
   >   
   > >   
   > > My idea is to do a "master" table containing the question "types"   
   meaning   
   > > the   
   > > text / label for the question plus a unique identifier. Then construct   
   the   
   > > actual survey   
   > > instances several rows per survery in another table containing   
   references   
   > > to the "master type"   
   > > and the actual values...   
   > > My colleague on the other hand wants to contruct new tables for each and   
   > > every   
   > > survey which would then contain only the appropriate fields for that   
   > > survery...   
   >   
   > (Based on my experience) No, no, no, no, no!  For a production environment   
   > you want things reasonably stable,  repeatable and measurable.  Your   
   > colleague is asking for instability through and through.  The dynamic DDL   
   > will eventually make an unexpected decision, usually due to the untested   
   > patch at 3AM as a result of some crisis.   
   >   
   > Worst of all, it will become unmaintainable within a short time as the   
   > proliferation of tables will become overwhelming to any DBA activity.   
   >   
   > I've tried a dynamic tables project like this and soon regretted it.   
   >   
   > IMO, if you really, really need differentiation, map views dynamically on   
   > top of the consistent and manageable table.  YMMV!   
   >   
   > >   
   > > He claims his approach makes things simpler while I'm in the opinion,   
   that   
   > > the   
   > > dynamic sql required makes things harder...   
   >   
   > Some additional reasons to go with a single table:   
   >   
   > - global statistics (never say never ...)   
   > - ease of enhancement - add something to one, not 287,352 tables   
   > - consistent reports   
   >   
   > /Hans   
      
   English isn't my primary language so I need to make sure i understand what   
   you're saying.   
   Are you saying my approach is reasonable or are you saying that both mine   
   and my collgegaues   
   designs are defect ?   
      
   The design / model I'm proposing is extremely simplified in the above   
   description - but it never   
   ever involves creating new tables nor includes the need for creating views   
   for each survery...   
      
   Cheers   
      
   Morten Olsson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)