Yes, this works out the same. You would just pull both columns state+neighbor instead of relation.
John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Burcaw Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Interesting SQL Puzzle > What if you had a related table with your key, state and relation columns. > In the relations column you would have 4 chars, the first two are the state, > the next two are the bordering state. Tennessee would have something like > the following: > > Key State relation > 1 TN TNAR > 1 TN TNMS > 1 TN TNMO > 1 TN TNKY > 1 TN TNNC > 1 TN TNVA > 1 TN TNAL > 1 TN TNGA I was thinking of something like: State Neighbor NE SD NE IA NE MO NE KS NE CO NE WY SD ND SD MN SD IA SD NE SD WY SD MT The problem is that I would need to group together states that don't border eachother, but in which it is between two other states. For example, the table above, you can deduce that NE and ND can be grouped together in the same chain if SD if also present. I think that will make it weird is when you have a situation in wihch three or more states border eachother, like NE, IA, and SD. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mymacaronilife.com [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
