Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #12467 > unrolled thread

Loop through array, change headings

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  Loop through array, change headings Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-31 21:08 +0000
    Re: Loop through array, change headings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 21:22 +0000
      Re: Loop through array, change headings Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-31 23:40 +0000
    Re: Loop through array, change headings richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-12-31 17:06 -0500
      Re: Loop through array, change headings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 23:00 +0000
        Re: Loop through array, change headings richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-12-31 19:19 -0500
          Re: Loop through array, change headings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 00:39 +0000
          Re: Loop through array, change headings "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2014-01-01 00:56 +0000
          Re: Loop through array, change headings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-12-31 20:50 -0500
            Re: Loop through array, change headings richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-12-31 21:08 -0500
              Re: Loop through array, change headings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-12-31 21:43 -0500
              Re: Loop through array, change headings "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2014-01-01 03:24 +0000
              Re: Loop through array, change headings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 03:26 +0000
          Re: Loop through array, change headings Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-01-01 18:01 +0100
          Re: Loop through array, change headings Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2014-01-02 06:23 -0500
            Re: Loop through array, change headings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-02 13:09 +0000
              Re: Loop through array, change headings "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2014-01-02 09:20 -0600
                Re: Loop through array, change headings "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:39 +0000
                  Re: Loop through array, change headings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-01-02 10:52 -0500
                    Re: Loop through array, change headings "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2014-01-02 16:43 +0000
                    Re: Loop through array, change headings "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2014-01-05 18:23 -0600
                      Re: Loop through array, change headings "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2014-01-05 18:37 -0600
                Re: Loop through array, change headings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-02 18:04 +0000
      Re: Loop through array, change headings Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-01-01 17:56 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#12557

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:52:49 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 1/2/2014 10:39 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Peter, please don't recommend the place you found that information as
>> any kind of reputable reference site. I've worked with databases that
>> had literally millions of records in single tables.
>>
>> If your "database" consists of an Excel spreadsheet, you may have a
>> minor point.
>
>
> I may be wrong - but I think he meant that was another richardism.

Indeed!

Most of the stuff I work with at $dayjob start off with 120 million
rows and we winnow it down to only the "most important" 7-8 million
records by sales records, maniacal guesswork, and willful violations
of normal form before loading it to the warehouse. One of the interim
tables usually pops a terarow by the 4th quarter run....

-- 
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.  And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me.
              -- Steve VanDevender

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12558

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 18:23:02 -0600, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> Most of the stuff I work with at $dayjob start off with 120 million
> rows and we winnow it down to only the "most important" 7-8 million
> records by sales records, maniacal guesswork, and willful violations
> of normal form before loading it to the warehouse. One of the interim
> tables usually pops a terarow by the 4th quarter run....

terabyte. mixing units with too much wine this evening. Though it gets
really close to a billion rows.

-- 
51. If one of my dungeon guards begins expressing concern over the 
    conditions in the beautiful princess' cell, I will immediately 
    transfer him to a less people-oriented position.
	--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12505

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:20:55 -0600, Peter H. Coffin wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:23:23 -0500, Norman Peelman wrote:
>>
>>> The whole idea behind relational databases is to set things up so that
>>> you don't need to make changes like that.

>> Norman, remember that richard is the guy that sets up a separate table
>> for each year's records because that's more sensible (in richard
>> land[1])
>> than having a year field in the record table.

> I think there was something about that helping to manage the size of the
> tables as well. Because any database will break if you put more than a
> couple thousand rows into a table...

Oh shit, you mean this small table of 80,000 rows is broken?

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12483

Am 31.12.2013 23:06, schrieb richard:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 21:08:42 +0000 (UTC), Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> 
>> I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but I am either too stupid to 
>> figure out the right way to ask Google, or I'm lazy, or it really hasn't 
>> been asked.  Sorry in advance, and if it has been answered, please refer 
>> me as needed.
>>
>> Here's my situation:
>> I have a table that has three classifications:
[...]
>> I have another table that has categories in each classification, eg.
>>     id Category Classification_id
>>     1  Market   1
>>     2  Pet Shop 1
>>     3  Pizza    2
>>     4  Sandwich 2
>>     5  Notary   3
>>     6  Repair   3
[...]
> Why not have one table?
> id | stores | restaurant | services

Please ignore such recommendations - richard seems to be incapable to
understand software development at all when you review his posts in the
last couple if years.


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web