Re: Table design question
From: Bob Hairgrove <wouldnt_you_like_at_to_know.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:19:25 +0100
Message-ID: <1nc520hotjrdtri2psoab8t0gd1rr6hi9q_at_4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:19:25 +0100
Message-ID: <1nc520hotjrdtri2psoab8t0gd1rr6hi9q_at_4ax.com>
On 23 Jan 2004 06:39:42 -0800, andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk (Tony) wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with having a one-column, key-only table -
The proper way to design this would be to create a domain of users.
That is what the one-column table is actually doing (i.e. enforcing
the domain RI).
>though I have known people who considered this to be illegal for some
>reason. On one occasion I actually had to add an additional non-key
>column (e.g. user_name for your example) just to appease them!
>
>The bottom line is: a user is an entity, and so there should be a
>table in which a user is defined once only; neither user_history nor
>log fulfill this function.
(IMHO)
-- Bob Hairgrove NoSpamPlease_at_Home.comReceived on Thu Feb 05 2004 - 22:19:25 CET