[thelist] DB Schema Design

[Hassan Schroeder]

Matt Warden wrote:

> If the table is truly describing a status, then there is absolutely
> nothing wrong with an additional attribute that describes the group to
> which it belongs. In fact, this model happens *all the time* in
> relational design: it's called a many-to-one relationship.

True enough, but doesn't this assume that all the objects sharing
this status table will forever have exactly one "status"? Suppose
an existing object is extended (or a new one added) that requires
a primary and secondary status?

Or, continuing the OOP analogy, presumably you wouldn't be likely
to write a ProductsOrOrdersOrCustomersFactory class  :-)

> Would you split /products/ into different tables based on their category?

If they have wildly disparate attributes -- yes :-)

FWIW!
-- 
Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- hassan at webtuitive.com
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-938-0567   === http://webtuitive.com
                opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com
				
                          dream.  code.