From: | Sean Davis <sdavis2(at)mail(dot)nih(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | Kumar S <ps_postgres(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org, olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk |
Subject: | Re: three table join |
Date: | 2004-11-02 18:34:46 |
Message-ID: | DF10E4BC-2CFD-11D9-807B-000A95D7BA10@mail.nih.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Nov 2, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Kumar S wrote:
> Hello Oliver,
> Thank you for your mail with suggestions. I decided
> to keep the con_exp_id as primary key because of the
> fact that a contact can do as many experiments as he
> can and one experiment can be done many contacts.
> Thus these two tables share a Many to Many
> relationship.
>
>
> Thus for other tables con_exp_id will be made as
> Foreign key .
>
> For example:
>
> Table: Chip_table
> chip_id (PK)
> con_exp_id (FK)
> ......
> .....
>
> Here it is easy for me to anchor con_exp_id as FK from
> con_exp_link table.
>
> Any other better alternative?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kumar
>
Kuman,
This implies that you will have a row in the chip table for every
con_exp row, so you wouldn't need the con_exp table at all? Probably
what you mean is that for every con_exp row, there are foreign keys
referencing the primary keys in your chip and contacts tables? That
gives you the many-to-many relationship and guarantees that you have an
entry in both the contacts and chip tables for every row in the con_exp
table.
Sean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Hammond | 2004-11-02 18:56:12 | Re: [SQL] Log |
Previous Message | Ion Chalmers Freeman | 2004-11-02 18:25:40 | PREPARE function |