Re: One-To-One Relationships
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:34:20 GMT
Message-ID: <0aIVi.160673$1y4.23786_at_pd7urf2no>
>
> I think that a relationship is something you discover, not something you
> create. Are you talking about creating two tables where there is a
> one-to-one relationship between rows in table A and rows in table B? If
> so, I think what you have created is not the relationship as such, but a
> way of representing it in the database.
>
> I hope this isn't too nit picky. I think the distinction between what you
> discover via analysis and what you create during implementation (following
> design) is very fundamental, and needs to be kept clear in all our
> discussions.
>
>
>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:34:20 GMT
Message-ID: <0aIVi.160673$1y4.23786_at_pd7urf2no>
David Cressey wrote:
> "Phil Reynolds" <philr2354_at_msn.com> wrote in message
> news:CGzVi.2012$%13.1165_at_newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> One thing that's not clear to me is when it's appropriate to create a >> one-to-one relationship. I mean, in some cases it's obvious, if there's a >> set of data that wouldn't always apply; then you'd want to create that set >> of fields in a separate table with a one-to-one relationship. But in what >> other cases? After the number of fields in a table is greater than X? >> >> I'm just curious about what thoughts/theories/ideas people have about >> one-to-one relationships, because that's something that's never been >> entirely clear to me. >>
>
> I think that a relationship is something you discover, not something you
> create. Are you talking about creating two tables where there is a
> one-to-one relationship between rows in table A and rows in table B? If
> so, I think what you have created is not the relationship as such, but a
> way of representing it in the database.
>
> I hope this isn't too nit picky. I think the distinction between what you
> discover via analysis and what you create during implementation (following
> design) is very fundamental, and needs to be kept clear in all our
> discussions.
>
>
>