Re: Table acting as a relation table

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:30 GMT
Message-ID: <uoUSh.23134$PV3.228663@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Guy wrote:

> I am going to rephrase my question:
>
> T_HOSPITAL <-------------- T_HOSPITAL_CLINIC <-------------> T_CLINIC
> HOSP_CODE HOSP_CODE
> CLINIC_CODE
> CLINIC_CODE
>
> With my asssociation table I can define which clinic belongs to which
> hospital. Someone told me that such table cannot have the only two
> field HOSP_CODE, CLINIC_CODE, but some other "key" field should be
> there. Quote "a table with no key to identify each row should not be
> modeled".
>
> Obviously my table will work as is. Is there however a rule I am
> enfringing ?

Besides, CLINIC_CODE is already a familiar, simple, unique, irreducible and stable candidate key for T_HOSPITAL_CLINIC. Why the hell would you need anything else? Received on Tue Apr 10 2007 - 17:41:30 CDT