Re: Database design qn for one-to-many relationship

From: Anthony Youngman <Anthony.Youngman_at_ECA-International.com>
Date: 11 Mar 2003 01:16:04 -0800
Message-ID: <9a993dee.0303110116.16aaa27b@posting.google.com>

karl wettin <wettin_at_users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:<20030305170356.5d9ed63e.wettin_at_users.sourceforge.net>...

>
> So your choises are speed or a good looking RDB. If you still can't make up
> your mind you might want to consider using an OODB.
>

Or a Multi-Value db. If you want to keep the number of tables down, MV is almost perfect, as you - should - use one table per entity, and you can store both attributes *AND* relationships in this one table.
>
> karl

Cheers,
Wol Received on Tue Mar 11 2003 - 03:16:04 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Jan Hidders: "Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?"
Previous message: Jan Hidders: "Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?"
In reply to: karl wettin: "Re: Database design qn for one-to-many relationship"
Next in thread: karl wettin: "Re: Database design qn for one-to-many relationship"
Reply: karl wettin: "Re: Database design qn for one-to-many relationship"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US