multiple databases or not?
 

I am interested to know how UR users organize their information. Do you:
a) Have one big database and have lots of different Info Types, or
b) Lots of databases each with one of two info types?

Are there advantages or disadvantages to either approach. When reading the the "pitch" for UR, it seems to focus on:-

"Instead of maintaining parallel sets of information
segregated by their type or source, you can organize notes and data by linking them all together logically in Ultra Recall."

..which makes sense, so why would i have separate databases for separate stuff?

I guess I fall into the category of Many Databases, but they would not be considerd small, and they contain many different types of Items. It's more segragation by Topic or Useage.

For example:
I have a separate database for Tracking Leads, and a separate database for Tracking Listings. The useage is different although both deal with aspects of the Real Estate business.

Another situation:
I've got one database for a particular comic book series, and another database for the original stories that the comic book issues are based. Both of these databases are in the development stage, but will eventually be merged to take advantage of Linking.

I've been avoiding the Hoist function until the bugs are worked, that point my be approaching soon. This will make large databases more managable.

Another issue with large databases:
Currently, I can only burn to CD, which places a phyical limit on what I can backup. Granted, a DVD burner is in the future, but for now...

I don't think that there is a single "Best Method", just depends on your needs.

At the moment I use a single database. Reasons for this are: speed, simplicity, & my own limitations.

It's hard enough for me to remember all the stuff URp has to offer w/o having to worry about which DB to import to, where I p;ut something, etc.

In addition, I don't believe there is a cross db search function like Zoot. Likewise I don't believe user can link / copy / move item from db to another.

To avoid the CD backup limitation of my pc (vs my laptop) I back up to an outboard HD.

Hi Jan:

I use a couple of very large databases and find that I can copy and move data from one to the other with no problem. As for linking, yes that is possible as well. I copy the item's command line into the other database and I have a link that will open the original database at the specific item. This is not logical linking, but it does provide some sort of link.

Jon

Yes, that is also on my list, as well as a larger USB memory stick (currently using a 512mb stick - boy are they handy).

Yes, another good feature/strategy to keep in mind.

It would be nice if there were ways to segment the info I have by file and integrate it all by search and hyperlinks.

Since that capability doesn't currently (hint hint) exist, I use one ginourmous file. Fortunately URP3 is fairly quick even with large files, but it is noticeably slower than with small files.

Ahh well - waiting for evolution to catch up with imagination... :)

Regards,
Bal

Jon, Are you referring to the use of C + V or X + V? If so that's not what I meant.

I was referring to URp's L options, i.e copy/link/move.

I think he was refering to Ctrl-Shift-C with focus set to an Item in the Data Explorer; same as right-click on a Item and select Copy with URL.

Gives a link to an Item when pasted within the same database (relative):

ur:///?item=7771,7504,7503,1024,1000

Gives a link to an Item when pasted in an external database (absolute):

ur://C:/Data%20-%20UR/RE%20-%20Lead%20Tracking/RE%20-%20Lead%20Tracking.urd?item=7504,7503,1024,1000

After doing the Ctrl-Shift-C on an Item, you can then do a Paste (Ctrl-V) into any rtf Detail Pane to create the hyperlink to the Item. The hyperlink text will be the Title of the Item copied.

Apologies if I'm butting in.

> Apologies if I'm butting in.

not at all. I think you're right.

I guess what I would love to see is an L dialog in which a user could switch DBs & select a place to paste/move/copy/link an item in the other explorer.

Does this make sense?

I think I would find that confusing. Have you tried opening two databases and positioning them side by side (for this I would create a different layout that maximized the display of the Data Explorer)? It then become a very simple matter to accomplsh what you desire and you can get a nice overview as well.

It makes sense to me, but your needs may differ.

Jon

On 11/07/07 Jon wrote:

~ Start ~

Have you tried opening two databases and positioning them side by side (for this I would create a different layout that maximized the display of the Data Explorer)? It then become a very simple matter to accomplsh what you desire and you can get a nice overview as well.

~ end ~

I've not tried this but I will. Thanks.

I tend to create databases with lots of notes (hundreds) and many links to internal and external items. I rarely store entire documents (spreadsheets, PDF files, image files, etc inside a PIM database, but prefer instead to link to such items and/or their container (folder).

So my databases are relatively small and usually break down into two main categories - computer (work and hobby info) and personal (diary, letters, essays, etc.). At home I have a separate database for each category and at work everything is combined into one database.

Comparing my work and home configurations, I would say a single database containing everything is more convenient in UR (as long as it doesn't get too large).

In a product like Info Select, just the opposite is true. IS (at least in IS4 which is the last version I purchased) complains pretty quickly about file size, but on the other hand, has excellent support for opening multiple files under a single parent container--including viewing, searching and moving objects across files as if they were a single database.

I'm hoping UR will someday provide better support for multiple databases under a single parent--and obviously continuing support for opening them in separate containers if that's what you prefer.

I voted for one big database with many Info item types. But I two additional bigger databases and a smaller one.

The big database:
Task and project management, contacts, notes, files, and favorites -> used at work.

The second bigger database:
Web research, favorites, quick notes (general), user accounts, passwords.

The third bigger database:
Research, Book notes and summaries, link collections for a particular topic (for example C#, Text Mining etc.)

One small database:
All private information like bank accounts, contacts, notes etc.


It is a difficult question. Smaller databases have the advantage of being faster and easier to handle. One big database has the advantage of having everything in one file and that you can use the internal linking and logical linking.

I carry all my UR databases on a 1 GB USB stick. I am thinking of buying an external hardrive with 80 GB very soon. External hardrives are faster and I can use it for backups.

My two cents to logical linking: It is more powerful than you might think in the beginning. The more you use it the better it gets. Having the Item Parents window open gives you all information where the item has been linked to. This can be very interesting. The drawback of logical linking is time. I often 'forget' it or I am too lazy during the daily business.

Dominik