Re: No errors reported -- but no positive data either.

> Greetings again, Neil. Nice to hear from you.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Niel Archer <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:13:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-WIN] No errors reported -- but no positive data either.
> 
> Hi Bill
> 
> could you supply the database structure for all the tables in your
> project. I suspect you are needlessly duplicating data or access to it
> 
> I should just mention that I am not without knowledge of principles of 
> normalization. I have never felt at home using tables that relate back
> only by numeric index values. This especially is true when it comes to
> filling in data. The colour, uv photos, photomicros,  "more photos" and
> colour scans all have to be filled with the addresses of their pictures
> of those that do exist while remaining empty where no photos or scans
> exist. 
> 
> The location where the camera icon is stored was one of the fields in 
> the main species table, making it easy to arrange the code but at the 
> expense of adding additional  fields.I thought it was time that I pay
> attention to at least some measure of normalization by starting new 
> tables to keep these various address sets in their own table. 
> 
> This move to additional tables have, of course made coding more complex.
> I have much to learn and practice before I am proficient with joins but I was
> able to first list all UV photo addresses to show with a query. Remember that
> there is NOT a UV photo for each wood. Only 10 - 15% of species glow 
> under UV. Therefore the index numbers are not identical to those in the 
> full 'species' file. 
> 
> Next, you cannot use variables in a query as you can with PHP. Therefore
> I picked one species name that I know has a matching UV photo. Once
> that was done, the output (using phpMyAdmin by the way) was the 
> expected UV photo location address. It worked! That told me that I 
> had the sql query correct.
>
> To place the UV icons beside each species that do have a photo stored, 
> each actual storage address is not important --- only that there is a UV 
> photo stored for that species. A UV icon then needs to be placed so 
> users understand there IS a UV photo to view for that species.
> 
> and seeing the structure may help to suggest a better one. For example
> you seem to be storing the species_name twice, once in the main table
> and again in the uvphotos table. That should never be necessary with a
> 
> Neil, I am aware that one of the advantages of relational databases is
> having one place to update data. In this case, though, if I added new 
> species into the species table, not all of them have UV fluorescence and
> therefore do not all have to be in the uvphotos table. If I took a new 
> UV fluorescence photo of some wood and did not find a record for it
> in the uvphotos table .... I would add it then. 
> 
> relational Db. Other ideas may also be obvious on seeing the current
> structure.
> 
> Niel, why would you wish to have the schema for all the tables in the 
> taxa database? There are 27 tables. Some are backup tables, others are
> for the purpose adding species data from other sources while yet others
> were started for me for purposes that are not at all connected to use in
> operation of the programming files in the website. 

Why? Because seeing the schema answers questions a description can't.
Mostly it allows me to envisage everything in a much clearer (and vastly
quicker) way, than trying to decipher it from the PHP ;-)

> There are only 5 tables that are used in the whole website. Tables 
> sci_order, sci_family and sci_genera are for higher organization levels
> than species --- and totally irrelevant to the problems we are trying to
> solve. 
>
> That leaves only the 'species' and 'uvphotos'tables that are at all 
> relevant. I don't mind supplying that. Do you want just the schema or
> do you want full data enclosed? Remember ......... the species table has
> over 15,000 records. It is large. phpMyAdmin can export the full tables
> but perhaps it is my lapsing memory I do not remember the best way to 
> offer you a copy of the structures only of these tables <blush, sorry>.

Yes, the 5 main table's schema would be fine. Sample data would be nice,
but not a good idea to send it through this list ;-) If you feel like
sending some directly to me that would be okay.


> I found that an internal query is needed inside the while look that forms all
> the listiings of each species. Each reiteration to list a botanical name means
> that the query has to be repeated inside this while loop because the species
> name changes. The UV query works fine in phpMyAdmin so I am finding it
> hard to find why the data does not show positive for the woods that do 
> fluoresce.

I'm not so sure it is needed. You should be able to do it with a join in
the original query and have PHP check if it's empty or not in the loop.
This is why I'd like to see the schema to see if that's a good way to
proceed ;-)

> I hope this fills you in a bit more. How do I list the structures of the two tables
> without including all the data?
> 
> Waiting with patience,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> --
> Niel Archer
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

--
Niel Archer


-- 
PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php