Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 03:53:43 -0500
Message-ID: <3544567.1067590423_at_dbforums.com>
Originally posted by Marshall Spight
> "Mike Preece" <michael_at_preece.net> wrote in message news:1b0b56-
> 6c.0310300133.29098896_at_posting.google.com"]news:1b0b566c.0310300133.2-
> 9098896_at_posting.google.com[/url]...
> > In both scenarios one side or the
> > other of the many:many relationship can be considered to be
> of
> > "primary" importance. Do we agree on this or disagree?
>
> I would disagree that this is always the case. (Note that having
> said that it isn't *always* the case is not to disagree with
> the idea that it is *often* the case.)
>
> I offer the following example:
>
> A relation expressing a graph. The nodes of the graph are
> cities, and the edges represent roads connecting the cities
> and the length of the road.
>
> Cities:
> 1 San Francisco
> 2 Berkeley
> 3 San Jose
>
> Roads:
>
> etc.
>
> Here we have a many:many relationship, and there is only
> one kind of participant in the relationship. Hence, there
> is no way to pick one "side" as more important than the other.
>
>
> Marshall
Agreed.
-- Posted via http://dbforums.comReceived on Fri Oct 31 2003 - 09:53:43 CET