Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:28:55 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad6429b$0$23778$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Care to expound? :)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:28:55 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad6429b$0$23778$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
lawpoop wrote:
> On Oct 14, 4:44 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>I don't see any particularly compelling reason for donors and donations >>relations based on the meager information available from your post. >>However, I suspect a compelling argument can be made for the necessity >>of donations and replies relations.
>
> Care to expound? :)
Insofar as someone might not yet have replied, the cardinality of donations and replies differ.
The donations relation is historical data so there is no particular reason to assume anything depends on donor should a donor donate at different times and you made no mention of a temporal database. Received on Wed Oct 14 2009 - 23:28:55 CEST