Re: Mapping one to many

I am not saying that this solution doesn't work or even that is a
"bad" one but what I'm saying is that there is obviously a better
solution. Also there are better forms, other than row/column, in
which to module data but there any Databases that support them. If
you'll notice from my second message I was asking why that is so is
so and to please enlighten me to the magic of RMDBs. I feel as if
there is something about RMDBs that will explain alot but is just
beyond my reach and I what to know what it is.

On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Richard Broersma Jr wrote:

>
> --- Nabil <Nabil(at)kramer-smilko(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Ahh but groups dont know about there members. It it was implemented
>> the way that it has been suggested to me (a table for each users,
>> groups and mapping user to groups) you would end up with a many to
>> many relationship. The way I wanted to do it was just map user to
>> groups without mapping groups to users. In other words map one user
>> to many groups, the groups know nothing about the users.
>
> What will you do when you have that you have to add more groups and
> delete other groups? Are you
> going to redefine the dimementions of your array and the assignment
> of your array indexes as
> records are added and deleted to your groups table?
>
> A "many to many" table is really a relationship between two or more
> entity tables. The groups
> table would know nothing about members and members would know
> nothing about groups. They way to
> determine the relationship between members and groups is to query
> across the relationship table.
>
> This is a time test any univerally accepted model for (Relational)
> database systems.
>
> Regards,
> Richard Broersma Jr.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>