> Why would your solution of a "history" table be redundant? You would
> actually be reducing the data redundancy because your history table would
> only need to contain the id field from the linkAB table, the
> status, and the
> date. If you store your history in the linking table you are redundantly
> storing the tableA_id and the tableB_id, as well as adding fields.
I think you are right Dan. I had already elected to go that route (the
separate history table) before I got your email, but I didn't really think
of using the join table PK as the foreign key in the history table. That
makes a lot of sense.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback.
- Sean
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sean Daniels
Manager, Engineering
Marketplace Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dealstream.com
http://www.mergernetwork.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tel: 207.439.6030
cel: 978.764.0799
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
