Re: Many to many

From: Kresimir Fabijanic <kresimir_at_ozemail.com.au>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:17:03 GMT
Message-ID: <3%ZW5.4414$xW4.41488_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>


Arne

I would be a little bit concerned about the guys who gave you the course - if the key from one of the tables can be made aprimary key of the third ('intersction') table, then it means it is unique, and if it is unique, I can not see how there can be many to many relationship?

Correct me if I am wrong, but...

Regards

Kresimir Fabijanic

"Arne Jonsson" <arne.b.jonsson_at_telia.com> wrote in message news:3a2bffba.52190770_at_news1.telia.com...
> For about two years I´ve been living happily in the belief that if you
> have a many to many-relation you split it in a third table between the
> other two, where you make the primary keys of these two tables to a
> composite primary key in the third. Now, taking a course in
> SQL-server, I am taught that the two primary keys can be used as two
> foreign keys in the new table, or as one primary and one foreign key.
> This have made me confused. Are all the ways right? If they are, what
> considerations to make when to chose one way
> or another?
> Arne Jonsson
Received on Tue Dec 05 2000 - 05:17:03 CET

Original text of this message