Re: [SQL] Table relationships

2007-01-09 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:13:35 -0600 "Aaron Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/9/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > >company <===> address <===> detail > > This approach implies that the address defines the relationship between a > company and the detail (the other departments/offices). I can

Re: [SQL] Table relationships

2007-01-09 Thread Aaron Bono
On 1/9/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:07:56 -0600 Curtis Scheer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -> Is there a difference between an address for the customer detail and an > address for the customer? > > Not really an address is an address, it's a matter of specify an address for

Re: [SQL] Table relationships

2007-01-09 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:07:56 -0600 Curtis Scheer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -> Is there a difference between an address for the customer detail and an > address for the customer? > > Not really an address is an address, it's a matter of specify an address for > the customer master record which b

Re: [SQL] Table relationships

2007-01-08 Thread Curtis Scheer
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:43 PM To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Fwd: [SQL] Table relationships -- Forwarded message -- From: Aaron Bono <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Jan 8, 2007 4:42 PM Subject: Re:

Re: [SQL] Table Relationships

2006-10-31 Thread Curtis Scheer
Thanks for the help.   From: Aaron Bono [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:44 PM To: A. Kretschmer Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] Table Relationships   On 10/31/06, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: am  Tu

Re: [SQL] Table Relationships

2006-10-31 Thread Aaron Bono
On 10/31/06, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: am  Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 21:08:24 +0100 mailte A. Kretschmer folgendes:> am  Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 13:32:59 -0600 mailte Aaron Bono folgendes:> > I would go further by adding a type table like this: > >> > operation_type (> > operation_

Re: [SQL] Table Relationships

2006-10-31 Thread A. Kretschmer
am Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 21:08:24 +0100 mailte A. Kretschmer folgendes: > am Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 13:32:59 -0600 mailte Aaron Bono folgendes: > > I would go further by adding a type table like this: > > > > operation_type ( > > operation_type_id bigserial (PK), > > You are sure, that y

Re: [SQL] Table Relationships

2006-10-31 Thread A. Kretschmer
am Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 13:32:59 -0600 mailte Aaron Bono folgendes: > I would go further by adding a type table like this: > > operation_type ( > operation_type_id bigserial (PK), You are sure, that you need bigserial? > This gives you the flexibility to add more operation types in the

Re: [SQL] Table Relationships

2006-10-31 Thread Aaron Bono
On 10/31/06, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: am  Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 11:15:26 -0600 mailte Curtis Scheer folgendes:> Given the following two tables:>> CREATE TABLE public.task> (>   taskid int4 NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('task_taskid_seq'::regclass), >   description varchar,>   CONSTRAIN

Re: [SQL] Table Relationships

2006-10-31 Thread A. Kretschmer
am Tue, dem 31.10.2006, um 11:15:26 -0600 mailte Curtis Scheer folgendes: > Given the following two tables: > > CREATE TABLE public.task > ( > taskid int4 NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('task_taskid_seq'::regclass), > description varchar, > CONSTRAINT pk_taskid PRIMARY KEY (taskid) > ) > > publi