Physical Design & Implementation
jvcapm
project_2_rubric.doc
Deliverables:
1. You should submit your four SQL scripts satisfying each steps in the project. Feel free to compress the files using WinZip and save as YournameProject2.zip.
2. Submit in your WebTycho portfolio in the Project 2 area before the due date. Please contact the instructor before the due date if you have any questions or concerns.
I strongly suggest you also submit your spool files.
Project Grading Overview
In the grade book, the total number of points will be set to 100. The project elements will be assessed as follows:
|
Attributes |
Value |
|
Insert Statements |
25 points |
|
SelectStatements |
35 points |
|
Update Statements |
25 points |
|
Delete Statements |
15 points |
Project Grading Rubric
|
Attribute |
(0-12) Points |
(12-20) Points |
(21-25) Points |
Points |
|
Inserts |
- Poor SQL insert statements minimally addressing the functionality - Poor design and formatting - Commits not included - Major integrity constraint violations present |
- Good SQL insert statements addressing most functionality - Statement has a good design but could be clearer or better formatted - Commits included - Minor integrity constraint violations may be present |
- Excellent, efficient SQL insert statements addressing all functionality - Statement is designed well, clear and neatly formatted - Commits included - No integrity constraint violations |
|
|
Attribute |
(0-17) Points |
(18-27) Points |
(28-35) Points |
Points |
|
Selects |
- Poor SQL select statements minimally addressing the functionality - Poor design and formatting - Multi-table joins are mostly incorrect - Output display missing or of poor quality
|
- Good SQL select statements addressing most functionality - Statement has a good design but could be clearer of better formatted - Multi-table joins are reasonable but may include some non-standard syntax or inefficiencies. - Good output display but could provide minor areas difficult to follow |
- Excellent, efficient SQL select statements addressing all functionality - Statement is designed well, clear and neatly formatted - Multi-table joins are efficient using correct syntax - Excellent clean and well-organized output display |
|
|
Attribute |
(0-12) Points |
(12-20) Points |
(21-25) Points |
Points |
|
Updates |
- Poor SQL update statements minimally addressing the functionality - Poor design and formatting - Commits not included - Major integrity constraint violations present |
- Good SQL update statements addressing most functionality - Statement has a good design but could be clearer or better formatted - Commits included - Minor integrity constraint violations may be present |
- Excellent, efficient SQL update statements addressing all functionality - Statement is designed well, clear and neatly formatted - Commits included - No integrity constraint violations |
|
|
Attribute |
(0-7) Points |
(8-11) Points |
(12-15) Points |
Points |
|
Deletes |
- Poor SQL delete statements minimally addressing the functionality - Poor design and formatting - Commits not included - Major integrity constraint violations present |
- Good SQL delete statements addressing most functionality - Statement has a good design but could be clearer or better formatted - Commits included - Minor integrity constraint violations may be present |
- Excellent, efficient SQL delete statements addressing all functionality - Statement is designed well, clear and neatly formatted - Commits included - No integrity constraint violations |
|
