RE: Need 2 cents on multiple libraries

["Bale, Dan" <DBale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>In your shoes, I would add "yet" to "no shared information between the
branches".<
My thoughts exactly.  Seen it too many times.

Multi-member files are a no-no though.  SQL (?? someone confirm) can't
handle multi-member files.  Maybe others, too?

Use the branch code field.

That's my vote.  But John Taylor made some good points to that need
consideration.

- Dan Bale

-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher, Don [mailto:DRF@HeiligMeyers.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 11:11 AM
To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
Subject: RE: Need 2 cents on multiple libraries


In your shoes, I would add "yet" to "no shared information between the
branches".  That said, I would definitely not recommend the multiple library
approach.  In my opinion, it would be unncecessarily cumbersome and make it
difficult to add branches later.  One library containing files with a member
for each branch would be more practical, I think.

Having said that, files with multiple members make consolidated reporting
rather difficult.  I personally believe there is no substitute for using
primary keys, like a branch number, for tracking and extracting information.

As always, just my opinion.

Donald R. Fisher, III
Project Manager
Heilig-Meyers Furniture Company
(804) 784-7500 ext. 2124
Don.Fisher@HeiligMeyers.com

<clip>
 We are debating between using one database library per branch
vs. a branch code field key and one library.  These files will be large
and in use 24 hours per day and there will be no shared information
between the branches.  May I have your comments on your experience with
using either/or.  TIA   Julie
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---