Mike, thanks for your reply.
On 11 April 2013 17:55, Mike Dewhirst <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/04/2013 4:41pm, Lachlan Musicman wrote: >> >> At the moment I have tables on the database: >> >> account_account >> account_account_parents >> account_account_children >> account_account_partners >> account_account_siblings >> > > Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but I have always had a design > in the back of my mind for such a set of relationships. > > I think it needs a single table for all the people and a through table > carrying sufficient information to accurately describe each relationship. > This would deliver flexibility to describe any possible relationship > including client, supplier, apprentice etc. You might be right. Those tables are created when I sync - it's not been a design decision I made, I tried a couple of methods and found the mieows was the one that seemed to make the most sense. > I don't think it would be as complex as a multi-table design like yours but > that would depend on what your system has to achieve. What you say is true, although it would be hard to get the reverse relationships with random relationships - how does a through table parenting relationship know that it's reverse is a child relationship? For instance. Oh, I guess it doesn't matter, that's done via related_name et al. Good idea. Have you done any work on it at all? L. -- The new creativity is pointing, not making. Likewise, in the future, the best writers will be the best information managers. http://www.theawl.com/2013/02/an-interview-with-avant-garde-poet-kenneth-goldsmith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
