On Sep 17, 2:13 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-
s.net> wrote:
> Howard Yeh wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The particular case is for a has_many association, but I want to avoid
> > the overhead of having two indices.
>
> That strikes me as a foolish premature optimization, rather like saying
> that you don't want headlights on your car because they take too much
> power from the engine. :)
>
>
>
> > It'll be insertion only, so duplicate foreign key is acceptable.
>
> Well, of course duplicate foreign keys would be acceptable. But what do
> you mean by "insertion only"? Do you mean you'll never be reading from
> the table? If so, why have it?
>
>
>
> > The association has the bag semantics.
>
> I'm not familiar with that term. What do you mean?
>
It just means under a key there can be many items. That's exactly what
I want, and it seems silly to have a primary key I don't use. But
nevermind that, if rails insists, so be it.
>
>
> > If this doesn't work, what's "create_table :id => false" ever used
> > for?
>
> For tables without AR models. In a typical Rails app, that would only
> be habtm join tables.
>
> AR wants a primary key, and in any case, it's poor practice not to have
> one, even if it's composite.
>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org
> [email protected]
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
