Re: Database back up again

[Michael Sallman <msallman@pro-ns.net>]

Chris,

Chris Albertson wrote:
>>>>It would probably make sense to break up my observations table
>>
>>(which is 
>>
>>>>now 8.9 gigs in size) into several smaller tables. But then I'd
>>
>>have to 
>>
>>>>re-code all the database queries. :-(
> 
> 
> Absolutly don't do that.  IF there is a size limit switch to
> a different DBMS.  There are many that don't have this problem.
> 
> Not only will it make your querries harder to write but someone
> else might want to write applications to querry the database.
> 
> I anyone's short list of bad design ideas some place above
> "keeping the same information in more than one table" is
> "having to know which table to query based on the table
> content"

I think I may have phrased my "break up my observations table" incorrectly.
What I mean is that this table holds all the data for each observation 
(i.e. one line in Tom's .cal file is one row in the table).
My thought was to "break up" the table by moving the photometry to a 
separate table linked to the first one, and have the first table just be 
  (id,ra,decl,jd).

Mike