Is it really bad design to have a date field that allows nulls?
The main question is what do the dates represent? If date1..date4 represent a continuation of the same thing then it may be better normalised to pull that out to a separate table. If they represent separate things then leave them where they are.
And using a performance argument on a DBA is virtually an exercise in pointlessness. In my experience they are hyper on normalisation to the detriment of everything else.
Damn! I just realised I've now got a dual role. I've recently joined a new company and I'm primarily a developer, but I'm also a DBA... GET THAT TABLE NORMALISED MAN!!! JUMP TO IT!!!! JUMP TO IT!!!
Thanks for the reply, yhey are all different, it is for an insurance ap. It is DateSubmitted, DateQuoted, DateBound, DateDeclined. I saw no point in breaking them out. I know either dateBound or dateDeclined will be null, but I don't care. It is just easier to code.
how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things
I create a application that use SQL to store documents like picture files, sound files...Should i use image data type to store these files or just the path to the file or something else? please help me to figure out the best solution. Thank in advance!
You need to think about how youe application will be used. Storing the file will make queries etc a lot slower but in some cases it may be the only way. If you store the path only then each client will need to be able to access that path (typically using a mapped drive).
So if you are using a purely server based application like a web app or even a small LAN based client server application storingthe path may be best.
I create a web application in asp.net with sql server 2000, I use always close connection in .net code as my consern but when run my application then visit page to page give a error "General network error " message . then i check lots of connection is sleeping state in process info in sql manegment(current activity) Now i open the particular processId in Process info show open connection with any storeprocedure name and show .net sqlclient data provoider referance as open connection which is fetch the data from sql then i check in code find really the connection which is got data by that store procedure is not close properly and i close it. This is ok but one problem is that some procesId show blank info with .net sql client data provoider. so how can i find where these conneciton is open in my applicaton because this processId doesn't give any clue for it , it show nothing only blank but status is sleeping. If any help have this context then quick feedback.
I have a website and a standalone aplication, both written in C#. This applications are both using the same database. The problem is that if i start the standalone application and then I close it (or not), the web page is throwing an SQL Exception : "can't connect to physical file ****.mdf .... it is used by another process" or something like that. The only solution is to restart the SQL server. If I start the website first the same thing is happening with the standalone application. The only thing I can do is to restart the SQL server on and on after each use of one of this 2 application. What could be the problem? What can I do?
I can't say that I've personally had this problem, but I do know of people that have had issues with SQL Express and they have almost always been fixed by changing the connection string. Try using the following connection string:
You can generate the query you need using the following SQL-Statement:
select'select [name], [year], [date] from '+table_schema+'.'
+table_name+' union all 'from INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES
Execute this statement with result type = text, copy the result to a new query windoe and delete the last "union all". It will give you a union all of all your tables -> your 50 tables combined into one.
Hope this helps.
Visit my blog at http://www.cubido.at/rainers