Generic Modeling
From: Brian Smith <brian-l-smith_at_uiowa.edu>
Date: 30 Dec 2001 19:41:06 -0800
Message-ID: <60360d48.0112301941.2b44f613_at_posting.google.com>
I am looking for information about generic modeling in relational databases (especially SQL). In particular, I have heard about the one-table-approach (the "thing" or "stuff" table), the two-table approach ("thing" and "relationship"), etc., etc. I have also seen a presentation on milder forms of generic database design (e.g. combining multiple code tables together, merging parts of CUSTOMER, EMPLOYEE, and COMPANY tables into a PARTY table, etc.
Date: 30 Dec 2001 19:41:06 -0800
Message-ID: <60360d48.0112301941.2b44f613_at_posting.google.com>
I am looking for information about generic modeling in relational databases (especially SQL). In particular, I have heard about the one-table-approach (the "thing" or "stuff" table), the two-table approach ("thing" and "relationship"), etc., etc. I have also seen a presentation on milder forms of generic database design (e.g. combining multiple code tables together, merging parts of CUSTOMER, EMPLOYEE, and COMPANY tables into a PARTY table, etc.
In particular, I am looking for:
- persuasive theoretical arguments about why generic modeling in the "thing-relationship" sense is good or bad for database design.
- objective performance measurements and performance-enhancing techniques for the generic approach (preferable that are at least applicable to Oracle or PostgreSQL).
- Storing various levels of meta-data (meta-meta-data, meta-data, and data) together in the same schema/table.
- Ways to implement a relationl schema on top of a generic schema (or vice-versa); for example, creating (updatable) views on a "THING" relation to get back to "EMPLOYEE", "CUSTOMER", etc.
Where can I find information about these specific topics? I am grateful to receive any pointers to resources you might know about. I tried searching on google but came up nearly empty; I guess I wasn't creative enough with my search criterea ("generic modeling SQL" is too, well, generic).
Thanks,
Brian
Received on Mon Dec 31 2001 - 04:41:06 CET