On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:13:35 -0600 "Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/9/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> wrote: > > company <===> address <===> detail > > This approach implies that the address defines the relationship between a > company and the detail (the other departments/offices). I cannot think of a > business model that would use this though there probably are some...
Like the obvious one - companies have many places (departments) that things are shipped to and details are things that are shipped. > I'm not sure what this relationship is for. It would appear that a > department can have different addresses for different companies. Hmm. I guess I missed that. I'm just tossing out ideas here. Real, in depth analysis would require an invoicable relationship. :-) > There are many possibilities. Which one is best will depend on > > analysing your particular business model. > > I agree whole heartedly. That is why I recommend starting with a logic > structure before moving on to the physical. Absolutely. Don't even think about the tables until you have mapped out the business model. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate