Re: Philosophical question - Staging tables, name and location

Hi Charles

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.

Thoughts?

Charles
--
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,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.