Re: Output to text files or a database?
- From: dagon@xxxxxxxxx (Mark Rafn)
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:59:39 -0800
kd <KeeganDunn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[have apps that read diverse data, write to textfiles, and another app reads
the textfiles and write to DB _versus_ having the apps that read the data
write to the DB themselves.]
I proposed this to a coworker, and he asked why the text files were
even necessary -- why not just immediately generate sql statements from
the different formats, and use the tables in the DB as the universal
format?
Is he right? Is there any reason to use text files as an intermediate
format? My gut is telling me to keep them, but my gut isn't good at
convincing people. :) What am I missing?
This is purely a judgement call, both solutions have pros and cons.
Having a standard textfile (possibly XML) format that gets loaded means you
have an intermediate step that is more easily debugged when something goes
wrong. It means you can distribute (over time or machines) the initial
processing and the DB load. It also allows you to make the loader do some
error checking that all the processors get to take advantage of.
Loading directly to DB is a simpler process, and likely faster.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@xxxxxxxxx <http://www.dagon.net/>
.
- References:
- Output to text files or a database?
- From: kd
- Output to text files or a database?
- Prev by Date: Re: Output to text files or a database?
- Next by Date: Re: Output to text files or a database?
- Previous by thread: Re: Output to text files or a database?
- Next by thread: Re: Output to text files or a database?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading