gvi...@gmail.com (gvim) writes:
> If a table representing contact details can have 2 but no more than 2 email
> addresses is it really worth factoring-out email addresses to a separate
> table. Technically it's a 1-to-many relationship so should be done this way
> but what is the general practic
But then a) because you can't guarantee this design won't 'improve' and
b) you would like to look in one place for all addresses, normalize now.
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
gvim wrote on 27.12.2010 02:47:
If a table representing contact details can have 2 but no more than 2
email addresses is it re
Hi,
In this particular case it isn't worth to add separate table just for
additional e-mail.
gvim Monday 27 December 2010 02:47:29
> If a table representing contact details can have 2 but no more than 2 email
> addresses is it really worth factoring-out email addresses to a separate
> table.
gvim wrote on 27.12.2010 02:47:
If a table representing contact details can have 2 but no more than 2
email addresses is it really worth factoring-out email addresses to a
separate table.
If you are absolutely sure you will never have more than two, then I agree, you
don't need to create a 1:N
If a table representing contact details can have 2 but no more than 2 email addresses is
it really worth factoring-out email addresses to a separate table. Technically it's a
1-to-many relationship so should be done this way but what is the general practice out
there in such "max. 2" situations
