Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:32:19 -0500
Reply-To: "Lambert, Bob" <Bob_Lambert@AFCC.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From: "Lambert, Bob" <Bob_Lambert@AFCC.COM>
Subject: FW: Oracle DB and SAS - reply
> You might also leverage frequency of data access. That is, if data most
> often analyzed is that within the last one or two years, put those data in
> sas data sets and the other in views.
> I am not an ORACLE or database expert but is there opportunity in the data
> base design? Are "stagnant" things like Name, Address, SSN, etc being
> stored in tables with dynamic data? These things might be better stored
> separate table and then the relational features of the database can be
> used to extract them when needed. Without knowing exactly what your data
> looks like, this is somewhat of a guess but often these simple things
> exist simply because it seemed like a good idea at the start of the
> On this situation where the user would like to have data stored or
> arranged differently (including something as simple as the addition of an
> index), I've been hit with the same reply -- "Sorry, not enough space".
> Again, I don't know your specific situation, but sometimes I feel like the
> DBA isn't tied into the big picture. The database they're managing is for
> the purpose of extracting information which is to be used in decision
> making, which in turn affects the bottom line in some way -- revenue
> enhancement, expense reduction, etc. This is likely no fault of their
> own. In short, help them see the big picture if necessary. They will be
> more likely to re-assess the "not enough space" response from a different
> vantage point. (Don't bet the farm on it, though).
> Bob Lambert
> Associates Capital Bank.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Marie Smith [SMTP:rainbowsoftware@PRODIGY.NET]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 8:54 AM
> Subject: Oracle DB and SAS - reply
> Hi Jules,
> This is a good suggestion because seperate views created with SAS's
> Proc SQl for each of the 5 years would not take up much space. But I
> think one really needs to know how much longitudinal data is involved as
> to whether it would be better to have all five years in one table or
> seperate tables for each year. If its massive amounts then by all means
> seperate it by year or even 6 month intervals. While doing report
> writing, I've found that one can only get about 6 months worth of counts,
> percents and some stats on longitudinal data on one page.
> Anne Marie Smith at Rainbow Communications and Software Inc.
> << File: Card for Anne Marie Smith >>