Thanks Jeremy– Unions may be a good call, equally it'd be nice to have just one 'Comment' table.. so to explain my situation I have a table 'PhotoSet' and a 'Photo' table.. a user should be able to comment on a Set, or a Photo –but for the purposes of the application the two should be aggregated in a feed.
As Photo's are many-to-one with the PhotoSet. I could have comments just linked to the PhotoSet, where a comment *can* reference a Photo, otherwise it becomes a general comment on the set.. make sense? Adam On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 16:41:14 UTC+1, Jeremy Evans wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-7, Adam Gamble wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just looking for some opinions on the following scenario, not very >> experience with database design.. I have two tables (A, B) that both >> require a comments column that would relate to a comments table (C). >> >> Presently it seems like I want two different comment tables (C.A, C.B) to >> create the `one_to_many` `many_to_one` relationships in the Models. I do, >> however, sometimes need to aggregate all comments.. is there a way to >> implement this association in Sequel? >> > > Well, it really depends on your needs. You can use separate tables, but > then aggregation requires doing it in the application or using a UNION in > SQL. > > You can always use a single comments table that both A and B reference, > but this would allow rows from both A and B to reference the same comment. > > To provide more help you'd probably have to be more specific, by posting > your proposed schema and exactly what types of associations you want. > > Thanks, > Jeremy > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
