Hi Joel,
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:49:25 -0700 Joel Madero <[email protected]> wrote: > Gah - I just realized that I think I have to separate "date read" > from the book info. Reason being that if I read a book 2-3 times and > want to track the dates then I have to have another table. With this, > I'd do a one to many relationship between the book information and > the read date tables, yes? Yep, sounds right. > The way I imagine it working is when I enter a book title + author, > it checks book information to see if the book is already in the > table, if it is, it just pulls up the info related to the book, and I > can mark as read, add a new date that I've read (which might or might > not be the first time I've read it), it enters the date in the date > read table, allows me to rate (or update the rating) etc... With this, you could even do away with a read status, and just see if there are any dates in the DateRead table for the book, but then you wouldn't get things like "busy reading" and "must read soon", so I'd still keep both tables. Note that this does mean you could potentially have a book with a status of read, but no completed dates. This is something the frontend would need to check for and not allow you to change the status to read without adding a completed date. > > Make sense? > > > Best, > Joel > > P.S. It seems like part of db work is just figuring out personal > preferences. Reading the emails a few times it seems like there are > differing opinions a little about the use of tables (the # of > tables), etc... There are of course slight differences, but there shouldn't be any major ones, except where we have different ideas about exactly what you want to achieve. If there are any large differences in advice, we've probably misunderstood something :) > > So my plan is sticking with the original thought - keep ranking > separate from the book information table, but splitting author, > series, etc... from book information and putting those in a different > table. I'm still not entirely sure how you want to rank books, but yes, keeping it as its own table seems like the right idea to me. You could just track a single number (say from 1 to 5, or 1 to 10), for each rank category, or a single text description for each category, and keep that in the book table, but making it a separate table is a little more flexible if you're going to use standardised ranks across all books, and not an individual description for each book. Paul -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
