Re: Relations Question

In that case... the lowest common denominator is Zip Code.... Which seems like it makes for a LOT of duplicate data in the table...

One Idea I had was to have a table of something like ID,Name,Type and another with the relations (Thought of a couple of different ones here!) that way I have a quick search on the names and I know what types they are.... the relation table could work as that lowest denominator table.. with the IDs as each field...

What do you think?

• Roger

Dominic G. Vadakkan <dominic.g.vadakkan_at_boeing.com> wrote in message news:3964C2FF.B2F65E30_at_boeing.com...
> very interesting. I'd love to know how to approach this.
> Just thinking out loud...
> we have to create tables for the lowest denominator..
> i.e. with the state, region, division, district,...etc
> and have fields updated only when needed...else its NULL
>
> Dominic
>
> Roger Webb wrote:
> >
> > This has been hounding me for days... maybe yall can help. How would
 yall
> > model the following...
> >
> > My problem is in having an unknown number of Master-Detail type
> > relationships between one master record and a detail record. Heres my
> > example.
> >
> > In the state of Texas, (Master) There are 25 Districts. The state's 254
> > counties are divided amoung those 25 districts. Then of ocurse the
 Cities
> > are in the counties. etc....
> > ---- So you have State, District, County, City
> >
> > In the state of Alaska There are no district or "counties". They have
> > something like a county..but a different name.
> > ---- So Its State, "County"
> >
> > In Alabama, the order is State, Division, District, County, City (And a
> > County may be contained in 2 districts.)
> >
> > Other states are even more different..
> > I think one was State, Region, Division, District, County, City....
> >
> > What kinda structure would yall use to make quering things like The
 Cities
> > in a State... or other such items perform well?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Roger
Received on Thu Jul 06 2000 - 00:00:00 CEST