> On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2017-8-11 03:41 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: >> I think Josh is referring to 3NF normalization (third normal form). I don’t >> think this use case warrants this complexity. I think it is fine for two >> snapshot id’s to reference the same port+variant combination. When a >> snapshot id is deleted, cascade delete. > > Again I'm not sure how this differs from what I wrote. A snapshot contains > any number of ports, and a port can be in any number of snapshots.
That does not make it a many-to-many. If the port was only in the ports table one time and you had a joining table joining that one port to many snapshots then you would have a many-to-many. But we are going to have the same port in the ports table for each snapshot so each row in the ports table belongs to only one snapshot, not many-to-many. Regards, Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
