On 2012-08-15 5:27 PM, Rajeev Prasad wrote:
> hello Peter,
> data_specific_to_device = contains diff values, and is different for different
> associated_service = will also be a list of values which will be different for
> different devices
> and same for associated_device column.
> this data rarely(almost never) changes and add happens only say twice a month. So can
> I not have one big table like below?
Size is not the issue. A basic table design rule is atomicity--one value
per cell. Violating that rule screws up queries.
> what disadvantage does it has? sorry I am not into RDBMS,
Well you are now :-).
Rilly you have three choices--read about normalisation enough to do it
right, hire someone to do it right, or botch the system.
> so i want to know prob specific to my data and proposed table layout. I am also not
> clear about relating more than one tables, if i break this up in more than one table....
create table parent( deviceID int unsigned primary key auto_increment,
devx, ... ) engine=innodb;
create table child child(
childID int unsigned primary key auto_increment,
deviceID int unsigned,
foreign key(deviceID) references parent(deviceID) on update cascade
on delete cascade,
> thx in advance.
> From: Peter Brawley <peter.brawley@stripped>
> To: Rajeev Prasad <rp.neuli@stripped>; "mysql@stripped"
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: suggestion needed for table design and relationship
> On 2012-08-15 1:54 PM, Rajeev Prasad wrote:
>> I have to keep this data in MySql, and i am not sure (as SQL/databse is not my
> field) how to organise this into one or many tables? right now I would represent my info
> as follows:
>> dev_x | 1234 |1234 |184.108.40.206 |220.127.116.11 |data_specific_to_x
> |SVC_A,SVC_B,SVC_C... |dev_y,dev_z,dev_n,dev_m...
>> dev_y | 2348 |7734 |10.2.3.4 |18.104.22.168
> |data_specific_to_y.....|SVC_B,SVC_X... |dev_x,dev_m...
>> dev_z | 3934 |5634 |22.214.171.124 |126.96.36.199
> |data_specific_to_z.....|SVC_M |dev_n,dev_m...
>> pl advice. what would be the best design? data_specific_to_device could be more
> than one column, as i get to explore the data a bit more.
>> and do i really need a device_id field? whi. ch any SQL table normally has.
> Without a primary key, a table isn't really a table. A surrogate
> (auto_increment) PK might be simplest.
> If the associated_service column is a list of values, it needs to be
> projected to a child table (parentkey, data item ...).
> From the info posted, I can't tell much about the other fields