Comments on: sql http://malvasiabianca.org/archives/2005/12/sql/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:54:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: malvasia bianca » sql schema http://malvasiabianca.org/archives/2005/12/sql/comment-page-1/#comment-4352 malvasia bianca » sql schema Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:30:17 +0000 /?p=218#comment-4352 [...] Despite my earlier planning, I still haven’t done any work towards switching dbcdb to an SQL backend. Part of this is other things intervening in my life, but most of this is the inertia of starting something new, and that I haven’t broken tasks down enough. [...] [...] Despite my earlier planning, I still haven’t done any work towards switching dbcdb to an SQL backend. Part of this is other things intervening in my life, but most of this is the inertia of starting something new, and that I haven’t broken tasks down enough. [...]

]]> By: David Carlton http://malvasiabianca.org/archives/2005/12/sql/comment-page-1/#comment-4253 David Carlton Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:16:49 +0000 /?p=218#comment-4253 Hmm. Is JDBC complicated enough that using it is significantly harder than generating a flat text file as you suggest? I would have thought that the conceptual overhead of going straight to JDBC would be pretty small. (Not that I've looked at JDBC at all.) Of course, even if it's small, it's probably nonzero. So one question is: given that I eventually want to be able to write out the data to the database and read the data from the database, where in this transition does it make sense for me to start using JDBC? Should I use JDBC right when I start using SQL, or should I postpone its use until later? (Where doing the latter might smooth out the learning curve some.) Not clear. And we can also look at the problem in light of the fact that I'll eventually need to update the database programatically. But that's probably too much thinking ahead to be useful right now. I'll think about it more once I've looked into JDBC. Hmm. Is JDBC complicated enough that using it is significantly harder than generating a flat text file as you suggest? I would have thought that the conceptual overhead of going straight to JDBC would be pretty small. (Not that I’ve looked at JDBC at all.)

Of course, even if it’s small, it’s probably nonzero. So one question is: given that I eventually want to be able to write out the data to the database and read the data from the database, where in this transition does it make sense for me to start using JDBC? Should I use JDBC right when I start using SQL, or should I postpone its use until later? (Where doing the latter might smooth out the learning curve some.) Not clear.

And we can also look at the problem in light of the fact that I’ll eventually need to update the database programatically. But that’s probably too much thinking ahead to be useful right now.

I’ll think about it more once I’ve looked into JDBC.

]]> By: John Cowan http://malvasiabianca.org/archives/2005/12/sql/comment-page-1/#comment-4222 John Cowan Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:05:29 +0000 /?p=218#comment-4222 For just simple dumping, it's probably easiest to dump your data into a text file containing SQL insert statements of the INSERT INTO table VALUES("this", "that", "The other", ...) type. That saves a lot of writing code, since all SQL database engines can understand files of SQL statements. For just simple dumping, it’s probably easiest to dump your data into a text file containing SQL insert statements of the INSERT INTO table VALUES(“this”, “that”, “The other”, …) type. That saves a lot of writing code, since all SQL database engines can understand files of SQL statements.

]]>