I see what your saying. Maybe it was just the late night but I was having a problem getting my head around it. Really the best time for a join table is in a habtm relationship. Then it would be a good idea. Like If something was taggable. Would be a good example of a need for a join table.
Thanks for your replies. I hope it was just a momentary lapse on my behalf cause I know I knew that before lol. On Mar 29, 1:52 am, Colin Law <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 March 2010 09:32, brianp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry I deleted my original post as I thought I had figured it out > > well talking out loud. > > > Well Model defining and the db schema kinda go hand in hand. I guess > > I'm really just defining the model, but doing it in mysql workbench > > =) . I'm bad with pen & paper =P > > > I'd have to say though at this point I'm still having trouble deciding > > if I would need my own join tables. For most of my tables I'm thinking > > not. The more I think about I can't think of any situation I would > > need a join table anymore but then I wonder if it's just ignorance > > lol. Support tickets for example. A Ticket will have many updates. > > I'll always find the ticket_updates via :through & :has_many. And if I > > have a ticket_update I can always find the ticket because ticket_id > > would be stored in the ticket_update. > > That is what I mean by defining the models and associations first. If you > have > ticket has_many updates > and > update belongs to ticket > then why would you need a ticket_updates table at all? If you have a > ticket then the updates are available via my_ticket.updates and if you > have an update then it's ticket is the_update.ticket. > > Colin > > > This is just a single example of > > which I may or may not have done "correctly." But I really just can't > > think of an instance that this system wouldn't work. Every db I've > > made all relationships have worked out like that. I mean I could brake > > that up into a join table but it seems like it would take more effort > > to query the join table and get the results then to just do it like > > mentioned above. > > > On Mar 29, 1:07 am, Colin Law <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 29 March 2010 08:33, brianp <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Just working out my db schema before I start development and I got > >> > stuck on my join tables. With the way most associations work in rails > >> > already. Are join tables really needed? Rails will handle most of that > >> > auto magically so won't building and maintaining these tables in the > >> > application by hand be redundant? > > >> Don't start by working out the db schema, start by defining the models > >> that map the objects you are modeling in the real world, then define > >> the associations between them. Whether you need hand crafted join > >> tables or not will then become clear. > > >> Colin > > >> > Just wondering your opinions. > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > -- > >> > 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 > >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. -- 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.
