Re: Table relationships

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:13:35 -0600
"Aaron Bono" <postgresql@aranya.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.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@druid.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.