A couple of questions come to mind.
1) Why will they not give you the access you request?
Could it be space constraints, system performance, uncomfortable with your design?
2) You say it "Might need" database related functionality.
If your design is this incomplete, it is no surprise the DBA will not change the schema.
3) Your statement concerning "My immediate reaction is to hack a way around the rules".
If this is employment related, stop, drop and roll, because if your hack cooks a production database, some one will be waving the ugly stick in your direction.
If this is school related - Same stick, less cash value risk.
I know the rules ain't no fun, but if you are in an environment where the rules exist, and you can not change them, there is a reason.
Difficulties I see with the proposed solution from a programming stand point: the database you store in another database (dysiad) will not act like a database to your program, you will not be able to order data, read data selectively or any of the other cool things a database can do for you. The best I can see (since you are not allowed to use disk either) is that you will store the dysiad in the main database, slurp it into memory as an array, perhaps, manipulate it, and write it back to the main database as a complete block..
I am willing to learn why and how this would be useful, but am also interested in why you are under these constraints.
No flame intended, but I have done corporate recoveries from people intellegent enough to bypass the rules in some clever way.
dageek
If I am convinced that the rules souldn't apply to me, they probably were written for me.
In reply to Re: Databases with in databases
by johndageek
in thread Databases with in databases
by BUU
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |