Re: Other or not? (again)
From: Felix E. Klee <felix.klee_at_inka.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:11:25 +0200
Message-ID: <20040908171125.154a52ee.felix.klee_at_inka.de>
certificate_type_id (FK)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:11:25 +0200
Message-ID: <20040908171125.154a52ee.felix.klee_at_inka.de>
On 8 Sep 2004 05:17:46 -0700 Tony Andrews wrote:
> It's hard to address your questions, because your database design
> doesn't seem to make sense (to me).
Yes, that's right: It doesn't make sense. I must have had my mind somewhere else when I wrote this, and, unfortunately, I didn't prove read it before reposting it. The correct design is as follows:
PERSON_CERTIFICATES person_certificate_id (PK) person_id (FK)
certificate_type_id (FK)
PERSON_CERTIFICATE_TYPES
person_certificate_type_id (PK)
certificate_type_desc
Now, I still wonder how to best deal with person certificate types that are missing in PERSON_CERTIFICATE_TYPES. I seems that this is a trivial question. However, I'd still like to hear an opinion on it.
Felix Received on Wed Sep 08 2004 - 17:11:25 CEST