Database terminology

[JoeA2006]

I am writing some documentation for an application and needed to know if
there is a correct term for a table in which the data does not change as a
normal course of use, vs tables that are written to all the time. Such a
table would be contain transaction codes, customer category codes and the
like.

 

[Duane Hookom]

I often refer to these as Lookup Tables.

 

[Cyberwolf]

I refer to these as static tables

 

[Jeff Boyce]

As does Duane, I refer to these as Lookup tables. I've also seen them
referred to as "code tables".

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Office/Access MVP

 

[Cyberwolf]

That does make more sense. Since I am a self taught DB admin, I have just
come up with my own terminology and then chage it as I hear from the experts.

 

[Smartin]

That does make more sense. Since I am a self taught DB admin, I have just
come up with my own terminology and then chage it as I hear from the experts.

I rather prefer "static tables" myself, but perhaps this is because the
word "lookup" has such a negative connotation for me...

"and thou shalt abhor the use of "Lookup Fields" which art the creation
of the Evil One."

-/http://www.mvps.org/access/tencommandments.htm/

I know... fields and tables are different, but still, it weighs so
heavily upon me...

 

[tina]

the

word "lookup" has such a negative connotation for me...

"and thou shalt abhor the use of "Lookup Fields" which art the creation
of the Evil One."

-/http://www.mvps.org/access/tencommandments.htm/

I know... fields and tables are different, but still, it weighs so
heavily upon me...

LOL

i usually call them "supporting" tables, myself - i don't like the Lookup
association, either - because they support the "real" data tables.

 

[Duane Hookom]

Jamie,
I'm not sure why you would post to an Access news group and use a phrase
like "Access ghetto".

I have often been impressed by your knowledge. I wish I could say the same
about your attitude.

 

[Duane Hookom]

Thanks for the reply. Apology humbly accepted.

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Jamie

I'll offer another person's perspective (mine!). The words folks use
typically are interpreted by the folks who read them (no judgement whether
or not this is a "good" thing). Like Duane, I've noticed that some of the
words you use could be interpreted as negative, pejorative, denigrating, ...

Given that the only control you really have over how other people interpret
(and understand) your posts is via the words you choose to use, is that the
impression you want folks to get? I suspect that using terms with negative
connotations reduces the credibility of the response. Again, as does Duane,
I value your information, but suspect that it gets lost in the reaction!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Office/Access MVP

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Jamie

As I suspect you do, I appreciate being heard. Thanks for responding,
thanks for clarifying.

I, too, feel that word choice colors understanding (and acceptance).

I don't feel that folks who's support efforts have been recognized by
Microsoft are the most knowledgeable, and I'm always looking to learn more.
I think you'll find the same is true of most of the folks who post and
respond here.

Please keep participating.

--
Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Office/Access MVP


Microsoft IT Academy Program Mentor
http://microsoftitacademy.com/

Microsoft Registered Partner
https://partner.microsoft.com/

 

[Smartin]

Jamie Collins wrote:

<snip for brevity>

FWIW I find your posts to be insightful and often provocative. I can see
how some folks may take it hard, but I believe provocation can be a good
thing.

This is Usenet--it is necessary for readers to relax a little and read
between the lines. At the same time I advocate that writers choose their
words carefully so as not to alienate themselves or convey the wrong
message.

Thanks for the insightful--and provocative post!