Renato De Giovanni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>FOREIGN KEY (object_id, 'X') REFERENCES object (id, class_id)
Why not just store the class_id in the secondary table (if you're
concerned about space, consider using an int4 to represent class_id).
Then you can do a direct two-column foreign
Yes, its not a task for _relation_ dbms.
I am database developer, I like rdbms, but now I think that I should start
to use LDAP for these kind of tasks.
What people can say?
Jul 25, 08:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Renato,
>
> > ...will only guarantee that each attribute points to an existent
>
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> I'm working on a project based on an unusual data model. Some entities
> aren't represented by separate tables, they're grouped in the same table
> just like the following simplified model shows:
>
> CREATE TABLE class (
>id CHAR(8)
Renato,
> ...will only guarantee that each attribute points to an existent
> object
> but it will not care about the object's class. Question is: how could
> I
> also enforce this kind of "meta integrity"? The following table
> definition came to my mind, but its an illegal construction:
>
> CRE
I'm working on a project based on an unusual data model. Some entities
aren't represented by separate tables, they're grouped in the same table
just like the following simplified model shows:
CREATE TABLE class (
id CHAR(8) NOT NULL,
name VARCHAR(30) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY K
