Re: Table relationships

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:13:35 -0600
"Aaron Bono" <postgresql(at)aranya(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1/9/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> wrote:
> > company <===> address <===> detail
>
> This approach implies that the address defines the relationship between a
> company and the detail (the other departments/offices). I cannot think of a
> business model that would use this though there probably are some...

Like the obvious one - companies have many places (departments) that
things are shipped to and details are things that are shipped.

> I'm not sure what this relationship is for. It would appear that a
> department can have different addresses for different companies.

Hmm. I guess I missed that. I'm just tossing out ideas here. Real,
in depth analysis would require an invoicable relationship. :-)

> There are many possibilities. Which one is best will depend on
> > analysing your particular business model.
>
> I agree whole heartedly. That is why I recommend starting with a logic
> structure before moving on to the physical.

Absolutely. Don't even think about the tables until you have mapped
out the business model.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.