Re: Questions about my strategy
От | Nigel J. Andrews |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Questions about my strategy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0207311129500.2710-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Questions about my strategy (Rob Brown-Bayliss <rob@zoism.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Questions about my strategy
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 31 Jul 2002, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote: > On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 02:34, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Why not three codes: model, colour, and size? Then you can query all > > by model, and limit by size, colour, or both. > > How do you mean three codes? > > If you mean having more than one product code for a type of shoe thats > what I am trying to avoid. I worked for acompany that did that a long > time ago, the product was steel, and having 15 or more different lengths > of a steel chanl meant having 15 product codes. It was often easier to > walk out to the store and look for the product than to query each > product code at the counter... What Andrew is saying, I believe, is that you need to determine what defines a shoe. What defines a shoe is it's model, it's size and it's colour. Therefore you absolutely need a unique code to describe each variant. Either that or you say the combination of (model, size, colour) is the unique code. Personally one of the two designs I immediately thought of (the second one actually but the first has more relations) that I would therefore consider strongly goes something like: shoe_model: mid primary key, name, description, manufacturer, ... shoe_stock: mid references shoe_model(mid), colour, size, count That structure gives you everything you want whether count is a difference or an absolute, at least I think it does. I believe it's also more of a correct solution than the convoluted way you seem to be thinking. Some database expert will now correct me on those points. :) -- Nigel J. Andrews Director --- Logictree Systems Limited Computer Consultants
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: