| From: | Nabil Sayegh <postgresql(at)e-trolley(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rudi Starcevic <rudi(at)oasis(dot)net(dot)au>, pgsql-novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Address Table |
| Date: | 2003-06-27 13:19:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1056719972.3251.19.camel@billy |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Am Fre, 2003-06-27 um 05.10 schrieb Josh Berkus:
> Rudi,
>
> > One other option, as Nabil suggested, is to have the foreign key the other
> > way round. Ie. the parks_address key in the parks_table.
>
> No offense to Nabil, but I can't see a good reason to employ that design.
> He's suggesting sort of a "backwards key", which could cause all kinds of
> headaches.
My assumption was (and still is): that at 1 address there could be N
objects (not only parks, imagine a mall with several shops, restaurants,
cinemas)
But if you're sure that each address is unique to 1 address ...
bye
--
e-Trolley Sayegh & John, Nabil Sayegh
Tel.: 0700 etrolley /// 0700 38765539
Fax.: +49 69 8299381-8
PGP : http://www.e-trolley.de
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | greg | 2003-06-27 13:20:47 | Re: Probably a stupid question |
| Previous Message | Nabil Sayegh | 2003-06-27 13:10:35 | Re: Address Table |