Hello,
Julien Cigar wrote:
I have "Objects" which have a name which could be in multiple
languages. I usually do a third table like the following:
- a table "Objects"
- a table "Languages"
- a table "ObjectNames" with a foreign key to "Objects", a foreign key
to "Languages" _and_ the translated name.
Since the 3 table version is what I would do, I guess that's the right
approach. I've never been wrong in my life, and I've rarely been
mistaken. </sad_attempt_at_humour>
It seems to me that ORM tool prefer the following structure:
I don't really think SQLAlchemy needs that. A very cursory glance
through the documentation seems to confirm my gut feeling:
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/datamapping.myt#data_manytomany
So my question(s) are: what's the better way to do ? 3 tables of 4
tables ? Is the 4 tables solution better / more normalized ?
I really don't see how the 4th table would provide more normalization.
--
Luís Bruno
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Sqlalchemy-users mailing list
Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
