> Why would your solution of a "history" table be redundant? You would
> actually be reducing the data redundancy because your history table would
> only need to contain the id field from the linkAB table, the
> status, and the
> date. If you store your history in the linking table you are redun
edundantly
storing the tableA_id and the tableB_id, as well as adding fields.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 9:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A join table question
I've used the approach you illustrat
I've used the approach you illustrate (sub-querying for Max()) before, and
it works ok for us, but I agree that it seems likely to be less than ideal
from a performance standpoint. One amendment of your iscurrent strategy
that might make it more maintainable would be to use a trigger that
automat
3 matches
Mail list logo
