RE: Is it just me
- From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:43:51 +0200
Getting On Topic again, actually the answer was in bad datamodeling
(what else). When the carriers invented code-sharing, relation between
flight and aircraft suddenly was n:1. However, all flights needed to get
displayed on the displays. So, the flight got simply duplicated with
another flightnumber, and all updates were performed on both flights
(from the application logic, what else. This was 1992). However, the
cleanup process was not tested enough. Of course deleting departures
was a completely different SQL than the SQL for deleting arrivals. They
had to, because the AD_code column in the flighttable had another value
;-). The favorite cut-and-paste development style. Only departures were
rounded up, and arrivals of code-shared flights were left alone. Annual
statistics revealed the unexpected surplus.
Best regards,
Carel-Jan Engel
===
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
===
On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 23:03, Mark W. Farnham wrote:
> I'm guessing that was not just good planning to avoid drunk pilots on New
> Year's Day.....
>
> ... 600 sounds kinda high, even for the Air Force's mothball airport.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
