Re: Joining a result set from four (4) tables

On 8/1/06, John Tregea <john(at)debraneys(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Because the logic structure of this software is in the front end
> application rather than the database there is a strong need to keep the
> naming of fields generic rather than specific, I am not using
> pre-defined foreign keys at all. If I was building the database with a
> purpose specific goal I would be doing what you say. I have found though
> that when I label elements at different levels of the back end for one
> purpose, they are less transportable in the long run. In this case the
> naming conventions are actually stored in another table and applied as
> aliases when needed. That way I can change the names and labels (for a
> new client or industry) while the underlying structure remains the same.
> I hope to increase interoperability in this way as well.

We all find ourselves in different situations and because of that, what
works for one person, doesn't work for another - so I understand. Good luck
with the application and future queries. Maybe you can use the existing
structure of your application to help create a query builder so you can have
it write a lot of your joins for you. That should help avoid a lot of
simply typos or mix-ups when hand writing your queries.

I am glad the queries worked for you.

-Aaron

==================================================================
Aaron Bono
Aranya Software Technologies, Inc.
http://www.aranya.com
==================================================================