Re: Table relationships

On 1/9/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:07:56 -0600
> Curtis Scheer <Curtis(at)DAYCOS(dot)com> wrote:
> > -> Is there a difference between an address for the customer detail and
> an
> > address for the customer?
> >
> > Not really an address is an address, it's a matter of specify an address
> for
> > the customer master record which basically represents an entire customer
> > while the customerdetail represents departments within that company that
> > might be at a different address then the company's main office for
> instance.
>
> Could be that you need another table. Sounds like you have something
> like;
>
> 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...

Another alternative is to add another table which just holds the
> address:
>
> company <===> department <===> detail
> ^ ^
> | |
> \==> address <==/

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

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.

--
==================================================================
Aaron Bono
Aranya Software Technologies, Inc.
http://www.aranya.com
http://codeelixir.com
==================================================================