Re: terminology q. regarding FK

From: Carlos <>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 00:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On 3 nov, 04:50, wrote:
> I'm doing some FK analysis of our tables by making a directed
> graph representing FK dependencies and then traversing the
> graph. In my code, I name everything using directed graph
> terminology, but I'd like to have something a bit more
> "user friendly" in the report.
> In this scenario:
> create table t1(a varchar2(20));
> alter table t1 add constraint t1_fk foreign key(a) references t2(b);
> t1.a must exist in t2.b. So,
> t1 is the _______ of t2.
> t2 is the _______ of t1.
> Many TIA!
> Mark
> --
> Mark Harrison
> Pixar Animation Studios

You look as if you are mixing up logical design concepts with physical design concepts.

In an E/R relationship you should use t2 "has" t1, t1 "belongs to" t2 or anything else that describes the relationship between entities.

The tables are commonly referred as "parent" and "child" when it comes down to foreign keys.

HTH. Cheers.


> Mark Harrison
> Pixar Animation Studios

BTW: My child can't wait for "Cars 2", so hurry up! ;-) Received on Mon Nov 03 2008 - 02:37:44 CST

Original text of this message