Products

Solutions

Resources

Partners

Community

Blog

About

QA

Ideas Test

New Community Website

Ordinarily, you'd be at the right spot, but we've recently launched a brand new community website... For the community, by the community.

Yay... Take Me to the Community!

Welcome to the DNN Community Forums, your preferred source of online community support for all things related to DNN.
In order to participate you must be a registered DNNizen

HomeHomeArchived Discus...Archived Discus...Developing Under Previous Versions of .NETDeveloping Under Previous Versions of .NETASP.Net 2.0ASP.Net 2.0Name Value Pairs VS Normalized TablesName Value Pairs VS Normalized Tables
Previous
 
Next
New Post
11/17/2008 11:49 AM
 

Hi All,

I have one question around Name Value pairs and Table Data.

In my project I have the requirement of configurable UI elements. Like DNN have the Configurable Panels.

What DNN uses is the Name Value pairs for the TabModule Settings for which we have specied our own properties. So whenever we change or add properties it saves it in TabModuleSettings and Name Value pair approach. In my case I want to use that as well and want to extend it little further with my own table in same structure for my Fields configurations. My fields will be displayed in Panel which is a part of module. But I want to go with DNN way. The only problem is that my every field will have 15 Configurable properties. And module (panel) is going to render the 50 fields which are all configurable and user will configure those from Settings.ascx (DNN way). But for every field it will add 15 entries to my name Value pair table. So for 50 fields it will add 750 rows. and let say if I have 3-4 such panels in my one page, so it will fetch 750 X 4 = 3000 records to display 200 fields. And then on UI layer I will manipulate and render one by one fields.

Will it worth to use this approach for storing configurations? Or can I go with the traditional approach of normalization of tables?

Please suggest some good solutions and also comment on performance if we consider any of the approach.

Thanks & Regards,
Deepak Khopade
deepak.khopade@lntinfotech.com (http://www.LNTInfotech.com )

 
New Post
11/17/2008 3:58 PM
 

it depends on your needs - if you have a fix set of properties per item, a normalized table is the best solution. if you need different structures, a serialized store (like settings or UserProfiles or UserDefinedTable) provides necessary flexibility. A third solution is used by MS membership & profile provider,  where a number of properties per item is stored as separated list of values in a single text field - this is valuable only, if you don't need to search or filter for a specific property value.


Cheers from Germany,
Sebastian Leupold

dnnWerk - The DotNetNuke Experts   German Spoken DotNetNuke User Group

Speed up your DNN Websites with TurboDNN
 
New Post
11/18/2008 2:32 AM
 

Thanks for your kind reply :)

 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeArchived Discus...Archived Discus...Developing Under Previous Versions of .NETDeveloping Under Previous Versions of .NETASP.Net 2.0ASP.Net 2.0Name Value Pairs VS Normalized TablesName Value Pairs VS Normalized Tables


These Forums are dedicated to discussion of DNN Platform and Evoq Solutions.

For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines:

  1. No Advertising. This includes promotion of commercial and non-commercial products or services which are not directly related to DNN.
  2. No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or other customers to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
  3. Discussion or promotion of DNN Platform product releases under a different brand name are strictly prohibited.
  4. No Flaming or Trolling.
  5. No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
  6. Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.
  7. English language posting only, please.
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out