José Pablo Ezequiel Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/26/2005
03:49:50 PM:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> After the good comments I've got on this mailing list, I think I have
the
> structure more or less complete. In some cases I follow the comments, in
some
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
After the good comments I've got on this mailing list, I think I have the
structure more or less complete. In some cases I follow the comments, in some
others, I've improvised (hehehe).
So, this is the (explained) structure, what do you think ? Anyth
Pupeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/26/2005 11:53:06 AM:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Je Merkredo Januaro 26 2005 18:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis:
> > For instance, when Eric Clapton did his unplugged version of "Layla",
he
> > was the same ARTIST as recorded the ori
Pupeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/26/2005 11:48:59 AM:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There where two cases where I have roles:
> How an artist participated in a song (creating the lyrics, creating the
> musici, etc, etc) and how an artist participates in a group.
> D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Je Merkredo Januaro 26 2005 18:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis:
> For instance, when Eric Clapton did his unplugged version of "Layla", he
> was the same ARTIST as recorded the original studio version but he was
> part of two different groups. The first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There where two cases where I have roles:
How an artist participated in a song (creating the lyrics, creating the
musici, etc, etc) and how an artist participates in a group.
Do you think that enums are good for this kind of things ? or another table
Pupeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/26/2005 08:56:05 AM:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello Shawn Green,
>
> Je Merkredo Januaro 26 2005 15:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis:
> > If it were me, I would have separate tables for groups, songs,
> > performances, recordings,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:56:05PM +, Pupeno wrote:
> Takes more room because of the extra field ? Can you tell me more about 'the
> normalized approach' ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
-Jason Martin
--
If you cannot convince them, confuse them.
This message is PGP/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Shawn Green,
Je Merkredo Januaro 26 2005 15:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis:
> If it were me, I would have separate tables for groups, songs,
> performances, recordings, and artists.
Well, the thing is that I was just doing a site for holding info
Pupeno wrote:
What I don't like about that, is that half the person_id fields would
be empty
and half the group_id fields would be empty. I was thinking about:
SONG-TO-PERSON-OR-GROUP LINK TABLE
* song_id
* musician_id
* type ('person', 'group')
* role (performer, lyricist, etc.)
But this is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Je Merkredo Januaro 26 2005 15:34, Ian Sales (DBA) skribis:
> SONG-TO-PERSON-OR-GROUP LINK TABLE
> * song_id
> * person_id
> * group_id
> * role (performer, lyricist, etc.)
What I don't like about that, is that half the person_id fields would be empty
Pupeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/26/2005 07:00:34 AM:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello MySQLers,
> I'm trying to define a structure for my database and I'm experience some
> problems, any comments would be appretiated.
> This is for a (web) application to handle
Pupeno wrote:
Now that I'm thinking about a fourth solution: Have two totally separate
tables for groups and persons (this is what I really like) and then, one
table to relate songs to persons, and another table to relate songs to
groups. The problem with that is that, sometimes, I need to get a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello MySQLers,
I'm trying to define a structure for my database and I'm experience some
problems, any comments would be appretiated.
This is for a (web) application to handle information about music, lyrics and
resources for playing songs. So, the d
14 matches
Mail list logo
