irrespective of the naming of the individual tables i would opt to have the
staging tables in a separate library for two reasons:
- Security becomes a little simpler as I can secure at the library level
- Save and Restore processing is more manageable; I often find staging
tables have different needs than data tables
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Another philosophical question for you all..
I'm beginning to work with a once a week incremental data feed from an
outside source that consists of about 30 tables.
I'll end up with a set of 30 production tables and 30 staging tables.
I intend to have the production tables in a separate library from the rest
of my application (currently in 4 data libraries)
I'm trying to decide rather of not to keep the staging tables in the same
library as the production tables or in another library.
Obviously, if I keep them in the same library, I'd need need to have the
staging table named differently from the production version. Whereas if I
put the staging tables in another library I could have the same name.
I was initially leaning toward same name, different libraries. But now I'm
thinking I want different names so I can use unqualified names and depend
on the library list resolution. Primarily so I can have TEST/DEV
environments within my change management system (Aldon)
But that leaves me with deciding rather or not to have the tables in one
library or two.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives