https://oldwiki.devbox.themanaworld.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Verious 2026-05-06T04:57:25Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.8 https://oldwiki.devbox.themanaworld.org/index.php?title=Dev_talk:Music&diff=3036 2005-11-20T16:18:22Z

<p>Verious: </p> <hr /> <div>None of the links work.</div>

Verious https://oldwiki.devbox.themanaworld.org/index.php?title=Archive_talk:Database_specifications&diff=3035 2005-11-20T16:13:15Z

<p>Verious: Table Naming</p> <hr /> <div>I think it is generally a bad idea to use the player's character name as the primary key that links together the tables for the following reasons:<br /> <br /> * Renaming the player will be unnecessarily difficult (since the character name will have to be updated in almost every table) (yes, I realize you could setup a cascading update to update the character name foreign key in every table; however, this is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources)<br /> * Data storage is massively redundant, which defeats the purpose of a relational database<br /> * The currently proposed schema will require 32 bytes of storage for every record in almost every table just for the primary key<br /> <br /> A substantially better design would be a Characters table which contains a Unique Identifier (auto-number, GUID, or other similar field type), this revised schema would only require between 4-16 bytes per record per table and allow the character name to be updated in a single place.<br /> <br /> This same concept would apply to items, weapons, monsters, NPCs, or any other similar table.<br /> <br /> == Table Naming ==<br /> <br /> I think the table names should avoid using the &quot;tmw&quot; prefix for the following reasons:<br /> <br /> * There was a discussion in the forum about renaming the project from &quot;The Mana World&quot; to something else (which would require a substantial amount of work later on, since all database table names and queries (used by both the server application and website) would have to be updated/changed<br /> * Since this is an open source project, other developers may want to use the database/server/client as a starting point for their own projects, in which case we are creating unecessary work for them by placing &quot;tmw&quot; prefix on table names<br /> * Other projects that use TMW source/structure may generate code that could be merged back into TMW; however, if the table names had &quot;TMW&quot; and the other projects removed it, additional work will be necessary for the re-integration of the code</div>

Verious https://oldwiki.devbox.themanaworld.org/index.php?title=Archive_talk:Database_specifications&diff=3034 2005-11-20T15:59:04Z

<p>Verious: </p> <hr /> <div>I think it is generally a bad idea to use the player's character name as the primary key that links together the tables for the following reasons:<br /> <br /> * Renaming the player will be unnecessarily difficult (since the character name will have to be updated in almost every table) (yes, I realize you could setup a cascading update to update the character name foreign key in every table; however, this is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources)<br /> * Data storage is massively redundant, which defeats the purpose of a relational database<br /> * The currently proposed schema will require 32 bytes of storage for every record in almost every table just for the primary key<br /> <br /> A substantially better design would be a Characters table which contains a Unique Identifier (auto-number, GUID, or other similar field type), this revised schema would only require between 4-16 bytes per record per table and allow the character name to be updated in a single place.<br /> <br /> This same concept would apply to items, weapons, monsters, NPCs, or any other similar table.</div>

Verious https://oldwiki.devbox.themanaworld.org/index.php?title=Archive_talk:Database_specifications&diff=3033 2005-11-20T15:57:03Z

<p>Verious: Database Schema Recommended Changes</p> <hr /> <div>I think it is generally a bad idea to use the player's username as the primary key that links together the tables for the following reasons:<br /> <br /> * Renaming the player will be unnecessarily difficult (since the username will have to be updated in almost every table) (yes, I realize you could setup a cascading update to update the username foreign key in every table; however, this is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources)<br /> * Data storage is massively redundant, which defeats the purpose of a relational database<br /> * The currently proposed schema will require 32 bytes of storage for every record in almost every table just for the primary key<br /> <br /> A substantially better design would be a Users table which contains a Unique Identifier (auto-number, GUID, or other similar field type), this revised schema would only require between 4-16 bytes per record per table and allow the username to be updated in a single place.</div>

Verious