HP3000-L Archives

July 2000, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ted Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Ted Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:56:45 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Thus it was written in the epistle of Chuck Ryan,
> > Hmmmm....  Let's see,
> >
> > 1) Because this needs to be a non-zero-programming
> > solution--it's in the
> >    middle of an application on which I'm working.
>
> Um... if it is in the middle of an application on which you are working...
> why not fix the logic problem that allows master entries with no detail
> records in the first place.
>
> Fix the problem not treat the symptom? :>

I guess here is where my inexperience shows up :-).  Why should the existance
of master entries with no detail records imply a logic problem?

At this point in the program, I'm doing a mass update of information from a
PC-based database overwhich I have no control.  I'm given a file with records
in it.  I have to parse those records and fix up the IMAGE database so that it
reflects any changes in the other database.  It is not at all impossible that a
given master entry will cease to be of significance.  In that case, it should
go away.  For an automatic master, that's fairly easy :-).  For a manual, which
this is (and, I believe, should be--yes, I've heard the advice about not
having any manual masters and while I'm convinced in many cases, I'm not yet
convinced in all), something has to be done.

My options appear to be two:
  1) Every time I make a change to or delete a record in the detail, I check to
     see if the master it previously linked to is used by any other records and
     if not, delete it.  Besides being highly inefficient as most master
     records have multiple details linked to them and will stay around for
     many years, this could also result in a master record being deleted and
     then readded later in the same run.
  2) Let the master records sit, touching them up or adding to them as
     necessary, but not deleting any and then take a single pass through the
     master at the end of the run, cleaning out any unused ones.

If there are more options, feel free to enlighten me, but of the two above,
#2 seemed a pretty clear win.

Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================
At first it seems obvious, but the more you think about it the stranger the
deductions from this axiom seem to become; in the end you cease to
understand what is meant by it.
                        -- Russell, Bertrand (1872-1970)
          ==========================================================
         Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted

ATOM RSS1 RSS2