Re: Relation problem

Are you saying to group the Org table and Ind table into the new party table? If that is so, then that cannot be done, since they are in excess of 35 relations on the ind table and over 15 relations on the Org table and the tuples of each are completely different.

Michel

<MSherrill_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message news:3a6b03ea.4744832_at_news.compuserve.com...
> On 21 Jan 2001 00:26:30 GMT, hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.win.tue.nl (Jan
> Hidders) wrote:
>
> >I am afraid that these magic words also don't make the problem go
> >away. :-)
>
> Depends on what the problem really is. See below.
>
> >This supertype is a generalization of Individuals and Organizations.
> >That means that every Party is either an Individual or an Organization.
>
> It means that one table, Parties, takes the place of the tables
> Individual and Organization at their original level of abstraction.
> Attributes common to individuals and organizations move from those
> tables into the table Parties.
>
> It also means that one FK for the table of party addresses no longer
> comes from either of two domains (Individuals or Organizations), it
> comes from just one--the table Parties.
>
> >If you don't implement
> >this constraint then you haven't solved the prolem that there may be
> >addresses in the Address table that don't belong to any Individual or
> >Organization.
>
> I could be wrong, but I don't see *that* problem anywhere in the
> thread. The problem I see is that the OP can't use DRI for a column
> that can come from either of two tables. Using a supertype does solve
> that problem.
>
> >And that is what the original problem was.
>
> I don't think so. Maybe Michel will jump in and make it clear.
>
> --
> Mike Sherrill
> Information Management Systems
Received on Mon Jan 29 2001 - 19:16:44 CET