Re: Multiple tables refer to one -To use foreign keys or not?
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:58:39 -0300
Adriano Varoli Piazza wrote:
> On May 30, 2:10 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote: >
>>Adriano Varoli Piazza wrote:
>>>On 29 mayo, 22:11, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>>>Adriano Varoli Piazza <mora..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 29 mayo, 18:38, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>I will cite Date's _Principle of Incoherence_ and ask whether you are
>>>>>>>re-inventing EAV, yet again?
>>>>>>but this doesn't look like the same problem at first glance. I'll try
>>>>>>to wrap my head around the concept.
>>>>>>Though it does seem to be an awful lot of work for this particular
>>>>>>Thanks for the readup anyway, if it's the right solution, good, and if
>>>>>>it's not, I'll avoid reinventing stuff in the future.
>>>>> It is not the right solution. It is a hideous way to do it.
>>>>And I want to make clear I wasn't accusing the OP of anything hideous. I
>>>>could not make enough sense of his post to tell what he was doing, and
>>>>some of it seemed suggestive of yet another reinvention of EAV. Not
>>>>enough to say for sure, though.
>>>A simple "Your post is very confusing, please clarify X, Y and Z"
>>>would have been better.
>>No, actually, it wouldn't have. You might have preferred it, but it
>>would have done you a lot more harm than good.
> > Ok, then this was a better reply than your original one. Though I > don't understand how asking me to rephrase my problem (thus rethinking > it) would do more harm.
It doesn't matter how many times one rephrases things if one lacks the basic understanding required for coherent analysis. Even if the result sounds coherent, it's probably accidental, and the chances for mutual comprehension are extremely low.
>>The only really useful and helpful thing I can say is: You need to learn
>>the fundamentals before you start designing databases. And learning the
>>fundamentals has nothing to do with learning the SQL language.
> > Yes, this is clear. I have the impression, though, that learning some > of the fundamentals implies a bit of experience in most real-life > cases. I could be wrong.
Fundamentals first. Experience later. A person can work in this field for 20 years and gain a year's experience 20 times, or a person can work in this field for 20 years and gain 20 years experience.
Sadly, one can find too many of the former and too few of the latter. In fact, the former abound. Received on Fri May 30 2008 - 21:58:39 CEST