| From: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 2 versions of an entity worth distinct table? |
| Date: | 2010-12-27 17:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4D18D413.4040000@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
But then a) because you can't guarantee this design won't 'improve' and
b) you would like to look in one place for all addresses, normalize now.
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> gvim wrote on 27.12.2010 02:47:
>> If a table representing contact details can have 2 but no more than 2
>> email addresses is it really worth factoring-out email addresses to a
>> separate table.
>
> If you are absolutely sure you will never have more than two, then I
> agree, you don't need to create a 1:N relationship for that.
> Especially because guaranteeing that there will never be more than two
> in the N part is quite complicated.
>
> Regards
> Thomas
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-12-27 18:00:34 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Previous Message | Michael Satterwhite | 2010-12-27 17:57:14 | Help with trigger |