next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

Please help keep (=WDG=) alive

• Server rules
• Forum rules
• Join us
  
• Clan members
• About the clan
• Server stats
• WDG YouTube Channel
• WDG Downloads
• IRC Webchat

Steam groups:

• WDG community
• WDG clan group
• WDG Battlelog Platoon

Our allies:

• [NuB] TF2 clan
• Velocity Gamers Hub
• Destination Gamer

GoG Links:

• Wix Discord
• Wix IRC channel

TF2 Links:

• Official TF2 Blog
• TF2 Steam Forum
• The Fort 2

October 2025

Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31
	Birthdays
Chaos (40)
	Upcoming Events
Upcoming Birthdays: Chaos (40)

[Teatime]

hahahaha?

I have quite a few DVDs holding two different movies. I have tons of recorded stuff on VHS (look it up on wikipedia) or DVD-R where I have more than one movie stored on a single medium. Not to mention each box of TV-series having numerous episodes.

Separating that data into an 1:n relation is simply proper design. My problem lies beyond that, in the more elaborate structures ...

And sorry, 5000+ movies in a collection requires a bit more than a couple of tables and two forms!

[scroggage]

I have tons of recorded stuff on VHS (look it up on wikipedia)

I think I still have more VHSs than DVDs on my shelf

[Teatime]

(Okay, just thinking out loud here, and mostly to myself)

Detailed look at a possible structure from a properties angle:

The smallest common demeanor is the MediumSegment. It's a section of a medium which corresponds with an entry on the movie side. So this can be a complete movie, an episode, theoretically also a featurette.
Properties for a Segment would be (for example) length, aspect ratio, audio, resolution. Those can vary from segment to segment.

A number of segments (>=1) will be located on a Medium, in a classical 1:n relation. The Medium will have a different set of properties, e.g. Origin, Release Year, Features, Format. This would be the physical data medium.
(Though some simplifying measures might apply here, like treating a 2-Disc DVD or a Series Boxset as one medium with a Medium Count >1, since the properties are the same.)

A Medium might be part of a Collection. As a simple container it would share some of the properties of the Medium, but not all of it. On the other hand a Collection would have no properties not used as as well by Medium. A Collection can be part of another Collection.

And while Collections could be established as separate level of the structure the closeness of properties could justify to maintain Collections and Mediums in one table, with references to the parent (since this is, after all, in internal 1:n relation).

[claws]

Is there a big enough difference between a Medium and a Collection to justify the separation? You could have segment A being part of a DVD collection (one physical dvd), a VHS collection (your old tape copy), part of the Buffy&Angel Boxset collection and so forth. Still not convinced collections need to embed collections, perhaps the same segment contained in many collections is enough?

(also thinking aloud)

[Chaos]

are you using this to pick what movie you wanna watch?

sod it.. off to the cinema to watch the film the guy at the till recomends byes xxx

[Hzza]

sod it.. off to the cinema to watch the film the guy at the till recomends byes xxx

Have fun with Piranha 3D .

[Teatime]

Is there a big enough difference between a Medium and a Collection to justify the separation?

And while Collections could be established as separate level of the structure the closeness of properties could justify to maintain Collections and Mediums in one table, with references to the parent (since this is, after all, in internal 1:n relation).

You could have segment A being part of a DVD collection (one physical dvd), a VHS collection (your old tape copy), part of the Buffy&Angel Boxset collection and so forth.

It's not the same segment; the attached properties are different. For example the segment could be widescreen on the DVD but fullscreen on VHS, Dolby Digital 5.1 in one case, mono in the other, and so on.

Still not convinced collections need to embed collections, perhaps the same segment contained in many collections is enough?

First time I stumbled into that problem was when I bought the complete WestWing Collection. There were 7 boxes, each with multiple episodes on multiple DVDs, with additional Bonus-DVD attached to the Collection (but not the seasons).
It's rare, but I want to be able to track that in the database.

The approach I laid out above is actually just a minor adaption to my current design. It will probably need a bit more changes on the forms (entry and display).


I'll probably not have made clear the dimension of the data I'm maintaining here:
I'm not talking about 200 DVDs and a box with old VHS tapes. I'm into this hobby big time, having almost 5500 movies on DVDs, Blu-Rays, old VHS tapes (bought and recorded), recordings stored on DVD-R, heck, I still have some of my old Laserdiscs (again, Wikipedia). I have over 6000 episodes of TV series in one form or another. Right now I have a little over 120000 people (cast and crew) stored which worked on that movies/series.
If I want to do some useful analysis or cross-referencing this needs a solid design. And actually I don't think it's overdeveloped. When I started it it was naturally very slim. Few tables, lots of different stuff cramped into those. But with time my demands and expectations towards the database increased, also with the sheer number of stuff I needed to rely on that information that my shitty memory simply couldn't handle. The current design is very much the result of me having to overcome previous shortcomings (lack of thorough planning, as Junta has pointed out, but I've been along a significant learning curve). And I will probably continue to find changes will be forced upon me (like it's the case here) or new features I simply want to add (toying with it).

[egg]

tl;dr......


..... what shall I have to eat for this evening meal....? hmmmm

[scroggage]

Tea, please stop the pretence. Stop using the word "movies" and just use the word "porn". You won't be judged.

[Teatime]

Tea, please stop the pretence. Stop using the word "movies" and just use the word "porn". You won't be judged.

I don't store my porn in databases. Not enough blood in the head to get the spelling right

[Millicent Bystander]

I still have some of my old Laserdiscs

These? 

[Finaldeath]

"hahahaha" Hmmm.

Teatime, you've hit my nerve, so whatever, go overdesign a database, why should I bother to provide an opinion you flatly don't even read properly?

[DeadlyAvenger]

"hahahaha" Hmmm.

Teatime, you've hit my nerve, so whatever, go overdesign a database, why should I bother to provide an opinion you flatly don't even read properly?

Now now - let's keep this friendly. It was you that said 'hahahaha' and teatime merely responded to it in a questioning manner. Personally - I think *that* is pushing it a bit too far. Teatime was just looking to see if anyone here could think of a solution he hadn't been able to come up with.

[Teatime]

I will go for the approach described above and will see how it goes (it's just for silly me, after all).

Thanks to all for input and advice!

(And it's not overdeveloped, it's simply big-boned )

[egg]

(And it's not overdeveloped, it's simply big-boned )[/i]

I keep telling my misses the same thing