Andy Hardy <junkmail@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<e9NCFWTNMdl+Ew4d_at_hardyfamily.plus.com>...
> In message <b515b4da.0304101021.36434d67_at_posting.google.com> , Dario
> Rossa <dario.rossa_at_mature.be> writes
>
> >- No relationships between tables.
> >- Table A contains in one of the columns the name of the related table
> >- Table A contains the record number of the related table, mentioned
> >in the column above.
>
> I've worked on something similar in a Bill Of Materials database. The
> main table contained 'common' attributes, whilst other tables contained
> the attributes specific to a particular item type. The main table also
> contained the name of the table in which the specific details were kept
> and that table would have the same item id as the main table.
>
> It was flexible, but you spent quite a bit of time doing double queries
> to find complete item details that you were interested in.
>
> Andy
I cann't quite see it. Can you explain why/how it is flexible? Thanks.
Received on Fri Apr 11 2003 - 13:02:09 CDT
