Is there a better way (xml) that would prove to be better? Space is not an
issue; however, length of time to display is, as always, a major factor.
That of course depends on how the user is accessing it.
I would save as a file and link to the file, but I fear that in the manner
suggested they will not map the network drive to a consistent letter at all
Again this depends on how the users access it.
What have you done or would you do?
Depends on the system but at least one file based solution is to provide an application\web server which can return a file URL and where the server permissions allow only for read only access into the file system. The database then returns something that can be massaged into a file url.
There are other solutions and other factors such as how many files, what sort of access, how often does access occur, size of files, goals of project, etc.
ntext , text, and image data types will be removed in a future version of Microsoft SQL Server. Avoid using these data types in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use them. Use nvarchar(max), varchar(max), and varbinary(max) instead.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I am using the following code to populate all cleaners and display the income from every cleaner. It works fine when there is a entry for the cleaner in the job_order table but if no entry then it will not display the cleaner.
I want to display ALL cleaners even if no entry in the job_order table but of course with ZERO income.
SUM(invoices.invoice_net_amount) as total_income
INNERJOIN job_orders ON job_orders.cleaner_id = cleaners.cleaner_id
INNERJOIN invoices ON invoices.job_order_id = job_orders.job_order_id
I am about to create 18 brand new table to support new functionality I'm going to add
Just for clarity sake I was thinking to create this table in a new schema (a bit like grouping my C# class by namespace / folder in my mind)
But as I'm reading about schema I read that it has security associated with it..
I don't want to make thing more complicated.. (quite the opposite)
So.. what's your take on shema? is it here for grouping things together for
1. clarity / purpose
This is a flavour of the month thing, some do some don't. Security allows you to assign specific users to a schema, really useful if your users have query access to the database but if you use a schema just for you to identify the functionality grouping simply give all users the rights to the schema.
Another issue will be your DAL, it will need to support multiple schemas, this one bit me many years ago as I assumed dbo only.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
After you CREATE SCHEMA you'll notice that the object, if I could call it that for a moment, is found in the Security folder of the Object Browser tree. But as far as using SCHEMA as one would an "idea" in the "scheme of things" ... it's nature is perfect for that.
I use it to isolate dev stages as I work on scripts. Testing procedures, isolating a vast array of data tables by filtering them via SCHEMA, in Object Viewer, is very easy. In fact one of the only downsides to using SQL Server Management Studio happens to be that only one SCHEMA at a time is filterable.
That and a very aggrevating lack of code editor collapsablilty (-/+) as in VS. But that's rant for another holiday. ARRRRGHHHH me buckoe.