Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables), any alternative?
От | Jose Gonzalez Gomez |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables), any alternative? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 306bf0105061909167c5beebe@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables), any alternative? (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>) |
Ответы |
Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables),
Re: Foreign key to a view (UNION of two or more tables), any alternative? |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 6/17/05, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 14:35:01 +0200, > Jose Gonzalez Gomez <jgonzalez.openinput@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The problem comes when you have questions that may be not applicable > > (8), or optional (doesn't know, doesn't answer) (9). The easy solution > > would be to have four tables: > > > > yes_no > > yes_no_not_applicable > > yes_no_optional > > yes_no_not_applicable_optional > > How about having a table with the valid codes for each question? > This should be relatively easy maintain and you can easily set up > a foreign key reference to this table to enforce integrity. > There would be no problem in doing so with such an easy case, but think about having a table with cities (hundred, thousands?) and then have four copies for each of the above posibilities with its related maintenance nightmare.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: