Gather Format and Store - Right or Wrong

The IT group that I work with has the habit of gathering data,
formatting (i.e. in reports) and then storing the same formated data in
the same database.
I think the practice is wrong. I think the activity is fundamentally
wrong because we are storing the exact same data in a database in two
different locations. Somehow I have the impression that database design
is about "oneness".
I believe that collecting the data and then storing summerized data for
reporting into a data warehouse would be the right solution.
I am getting flack for my viewpoint.
Am I all washed up?That sounds weird. IF the formatted data is stored for performance reasons,
I'd at least have it in
another database. But I prefer to do the report off of the production databa
se (if low activity and
doesn't have perf impact), or have a different database better suited for re
porting off of.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"rlm" <groups@.rlmoore.net> wrote in message
news:1146747407.524001.97330@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The IT group that I work with has the habit of gathering data,
> formatting (i.e. in reports) and then storing the same formated data in
> the same database.
> I think the practice is wrong. I think the activity is fundamentally
> wrong because we are storing the exact same data in a database in two
> different locations. Somehow I have the impression that database design
> is about "oneness".
> I believe that collecting the data and then storing summerized data for
> reporting into a data warehouse would be the right solution.
> I am getting flack for my viewpoint.
> Am I all washed up?
>

Gather Format and Store - Right or Wrong

The IT group that I work with has the habit of gathering data,
formatting (i.e. in reports) and then storing the same formated data in
the same database.

I think the practice is wrong. I think the activity is fundamentally
wrong because we are storing the exact same data in a database in two
different locations. Somehow I have the impression that database design
is about "oneness".

I believe that collecting the data and then storing summerized data for
reporting into a data warehouse would be the right solution.

I am getting flack for my viewpoint.

Am I all washed up?That sounds weird. IF the formatted data is stored for performance reasons, I'd at least have it in
another database. But I prefer to do the report off of the production database (if low activity and
doesn't have perf impact), or have a different database better suited for reporting off of.

--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/

"rlm" <groups@.rlmoore.net> wrote in message
news:1146747407.524001.97330@.j33g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> The IT group that I work with has the habit of gathering data,
> formatting (i.e. in reports) and then storing the same formated data in
> the same database.
> I think the practice is wrong. I think the activity is fundamentally
> wrong because we are storing the exact same data in a database in two
> different locations. Somehow I have the impression that database design
> is about "oneness".
> I believe that collecting the data and then storing summerized data for
> reporting into a data warehouse would be the right solution.
> I am getting flack for my viewpoint.
> Am I all washed up?

Gather Format and Store - Right or Wrong

The IT group that I work with has the habit of gathering data,
formatting (i.e. in reports) and then storing the same formated data in
the same database.
I think the practice is wrong. I think the activity is fundamentally
wrong because we are storing the exact same data in a database in two
different locations. Somehow I have the impression that database design
is about "oneness".
I believe that collecting the data and then storing summerized data for
reporting into a data warehouse would be the right solution.
I am getting flack for my viewpoint.
Am I all washed up?That sounds weird. IF the formatted data is stored for performance reasons, I'd at least have it in
another database. But I prefer to do the report off of the production database (if low activity and
doesn't have perf impact), or have a different database better suited for reporting off of.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"rlm" <groups@.rlmoore.net> wrote in message
news:1146747407.524001.97330@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The IT group that I work with has the habit of gathering data,
> formatting (i.e. in reports) and then storing the same formated data in
> the same database.
> I think the practice is wrong. I think the activity is fundamentally
> wrong because we are storing the exact same data in a database in two
> different locations. Somehow I have the impression that database design
> is about "oneness".
> I believe that collecting the data and then storing summerized data for
> reporting into a data warehouse would be the right solution.
> I am getting flack for my viewpoint.
> Am I all washed up?
>

Fuzzy Lookup problems

Hi everyone,

Ive just started looking at the Fuzzy Lookup feature and i think i must be getting something fundamentally wrong. I have two tables - each contain different meta data representations for a set of potentially similar documents. The only chance i have of matching a document in table A to a document in table B is a common title field. However, manual input means that the titles may differ in both tables although they are potentially quite similar in most cases.

In the lookup i get to specify the output columns from table B (Reference) which is fine, but i don't seem to get to choose the columns from table A that i would also like to see. So my output shows me all the documents from table B that it thinks are similar to ones in table A...but not identifying which record it's similar to.

I initially thought that the "pass through" columns that i identified would appear in the output - but this does not seem to be the case.

I must be using it incorrectly, but i have no idea how to progress with this apart from creating a new source table (C) which is a full outer join of table A and B - and then also using table C as the reference table, but that seems madness.

any help would be appreciated - ta

Andrew

I may have spoken too soon.

It's strange, but if i've been using the 'Advanced Edit' dialog to setup the lookup - which i had assumed contained the same functionality (plus more) as the 'Edit' dialog. It looks like i was wrong. If i setup the Lookup through the Edit page, I can specify the Pass Through columns (which it doesn't look like you can do from inside the Advanced Edit box). Then once i have finished the basic edit i can go in and perform any additional advanced editings.

I suppose it kind of makes sense - my intial attempts at setting Pass Throughs must have been flawed in some other way :)

Hope this helps someone else!

Andrew :)

|||

Perhaps have a look at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/bi/integration/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/datasol.asp

Although primarily about Master Data Management (MDM) it also covers some of the interesting Fuzzy techniques that can be used with SSIS.

Donald

Function Return First Date of Week of Year

Hi
I've been using this function to return the date og the 'w of year' - but
until 2004-53 - > it calculates wrong.
W 53-2004 -> 2004/12/27 OK
W 01-2005 -> 2005/01/01 Wrong
W 02-2005 -> 2005/01/02 Wrong
W 03-2005 -> 2005/01/10 OK
btw: I have the Set DateFirst 1 ( Monday )
Can anyone Help?
And here the function
create FUNCTION WEEK_TO_DATE(@.w int, @.year int)
RETURNS datetime
AS
BEGIN
declare @.date datetime
set @.date = convert(datetime, '1/1/' + cast(@.year as char(4)) )
while datepart(wk, @.date) <> @.w
set @.date = dateadd(dd, 1, @.date)
RETURN @.date
END
Kind Regards
J. E. JensenTake a look at the ISOWEEK function under the CREATE FUNCTION topic in
Books Online.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--