If I understand, you want to deal with C as an abstraction of the A-B
relationship. I can see how passing C (instead of A & B) would
simplify form handling.
But, you could pass AB just as easily as you can pass C.
I think introducing C in your joins will just complicate them further
as you will *still* need to specify
T1.a = T3.a AND T3.b = T2.b
relationship, somehow.
Your code and SQL will be harder to read, explain and understand with
this "C" thingie.
So, it appears to be a tradeoff:
denormalize & added complexity vs convenience
IMO, it isn't worth it
HTH
Dick
On Mar 18, 2004, at 6:18 AM, Tangorre, Michael wrote:
> Basically, I only gave you a partial story.. The rest of it is that
> the join
> tables are used in other relationships and the where conditions and
> join
> conditions are getting sloppy. In addition, a lot of the front end
> deals
> with dynamic forms and passing around a handful of IDs is getting
> cumbersome.
>
> Does that tip the scale either way?
>
> Mike
>
> > So, C is an identity or autonumber field?
> >
> > I have seen/done this, but not for the reasons you state --
> > could you expand on how using C would ease writing of the where
> clause
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
