Either add some sort of archived bit field and a date field to say when the change was made, or create an archives table, so you can sep back through their previous families.
-- Timothy Heald Analyst, Architect, Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: 202-228-8372 C: 703-300-3911 -----Original Message----- From: Richard Dillman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT: SQL Delema Thanks guys, I knew i was going about it the wrong way and chasing my tail. they just sent me a question.... what if they need to split up families later... adopting 8 children at once is a pretty good trick by itself, so sometimes they send them out in smaller groups. And I actually remember a family of kids that got split up 4 or 5 different ways till they got homes. Very Very sad stuff. But they would want to keep track of the original family for correspondence and such. This helps a lot Ill let ya all know how it goes. for those interested http://www.in.gov/dcs/adoption/ is the site being revamped. The old site is all in inline asp and thats only used to log in and submit a formal request. On 4/24/06, Denny Valliant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Im a bit at a loss for a way for multiple children to be related to > > eachother. say a family of 8 with each child haveing a pointer to > > each > of > > the other 7. > > > You hit it on the head with this comment. You need families! > > Instead of relating each child to each child, relate each child to a > family. > > You can even have all the info that's the same for all children be in > the "family" record instead of in each "child" record. > > Take a look at the business logic, see what grouping is best. > Normalizing the data is a good idea, so you may think of something > along the lines of: > > persons: > person_id > first_name > last_name > > households > household_id > person_id_hoh (head of household) > > childs: > child_id > person_id > household_id > > Or something like that. Zaphod beat me too it, it looks like. :-) > > It really depends on the business logic tho... it may make more sense > to not have "childs" at all, and instead have "household members", > with a "type" of household member being "child" or "parent", etc.. > > Just depends on what you gotta do, the data at hand, ad infinitum. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:238503 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
