Re: I have read tons of theory...but still...one question

From: Kostas <noemail_at_noemail.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:23:39 -0400
Message-ID: <10n5em74hrm2474@corp.supernews.com>

It was not my intent to mix them.
I cant agree more...Actually for me, even the simplest database goes from

1) ERD
2) Logical
3) Physical

I know design and and analysis issues got smashed together here, partly due to my own fault since I had both the ERD and the Logical models of my db in my mind as I was participating in the discussion.

Cheers!
Konstantinos

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:dYadnSL2tZlGyu_cRVn-pA_at_comcast.com...
> Kostas,
>
> (PersonID, PhoneID) represents a many-to-many relationship between
> persons
> and phones.
>
> As long as we are going to talk about "entities", we might as well talk
> about "relationships" as well.
> When you get down to designing your relations, it's sort of a moot point,
> because you will use relations to hold data about entities, data about
> weak
> entites, and data about relationships.
>
> The advantages of using Entity-Relationship (ER or ERD) modeling to think
> about the problem, is that it allows you to distinguish between ANALYSIS
> and DESIGN. Your ER model captures what you think you know about persons
> and phones. That's analysis.
>
> Your relational model pertains to the solution, not the problem. That's
> design.
>
> Design issues and analysis issues have been smashed together in this
> discussion. You can do that if you want, but I recommend keeping them
> separate.
>
>
Received on Sun Oct 17 2004 - 13:23:39 CDT