Edward Kenworthy <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said: > On 2/10/03 6:34 pm, "Harkness, David" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have several unidirectional N:1 relations, but I have *zero* >> relation tables. Granted, they're N:1 and not 1:N, but I don't see >> how that would make any difference. >> >> MailMessages ---1:N--> Users >> messageKey ID >> ... messageKey >> ... > > Of course it makes a difference - consider the location and > number of foreign keys in each case.
How does the choice of unidirectional 1:N vs. N:1 make any difference to the database schema? The above schema would work for both. Whether the Users entity has a MailMessagesLocal or the MailMessagesLocal has a Collection of UsersLocals has no bearing on where you'd put the foreign key nor force you to use a relation table. Sure, you *could* model it with a relation table, but why? That would simply turn a N:1 relation into an N:M relation where M always equals 1. David Harkness Sr. Software Engineer Sony Pictures Digital Networks (310) 482-4756 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
