Table structure? -- PTR

[Joakim Schramm]

Ok lets leave it for now, I agree this been too many mails and I am getting
embaressed :-)

I will work on it on my own and see what I can get from your advices.

Joakim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: valentina-bounces at lists.macserve.net 
> [mailto:valentina-bounces at lists.macserve.net] On Behalf Of 
> Ruslan Zasukhin
> Sent: 01 May 2006 21:14
> To: valentina at lists.macserve.net; 
> vdevelopers at paradigma.ukrcom.kherson.ua
> Subject: Re: Table structure? -- PTR 
> 
> On 5/1/06 10:01 PM, "Joakim Schramm" <joakim at astrocalc.com> wrote:
> 
> >> No, for NORMAL case of third M:M table - NO.
> >> And than more know IF you will use STRINGS to be keys and PTRs.
> >> 
> > All old keys are string[2 or 4] in fact.
> 
> >> Again, in your old db you SOMEHOW did play *without* third table.
> >> So that was not real M:M relationship.
> >> 
> > No it's not a real M:M, actually it's a M:1 (not 1:M) as M side is 
> > used to return the 1 side belonging to it. Yes I know, this 
> is strange 
> > things. But I maybe have forgot one link when putting it in 
> relational.
> 
> Then this change things.
> 
> * you have PTR field, but you have also only M : 1 direction 
> of lookup!!!
>     this means that you can do very rare case: DO NOT INDEX 
> this PTR field.
> 
> 
> * I think in this case you can use ObjectPtr and set flag 
> fIndexed OFF.
>     interesting if we allow this :-)
>     we was sure that nobody need non-indexed ObjectPtr.
> 
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> 
> Ruslan Zasukhin
> VP Engineering and New Technology
> Paradigma Software, Inc
> 
> Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information http://www.paradigmasoft.com
> 
> [I feel the need: the need for speed]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Valentina mailing list
> Valentina at lists.macserve.net
> http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
>