On 15 March 2010 17:22, Frank Kim wrote:
> Okay here's why I want to do it.
> The first table contains just data.
> The second table will be a view whose data can change depending on
> other external factors. It could change daily.
> Yes this second table could be an association but I would have
On 15 March 2010 18:14, Greg Donald wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Aldric Giacomoni
> wrote:
>> What possible benefit could you derive from this
>
> A second table is required when you have constraints that you don't
> want interfering with your ability to save data to the first tabl
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Aldric Giacomoni wrote:
> What possible benefit could you derive from this
A second table is required when you have constraints that you don't
want interfering with your ability to save data to the first table.
has_one is very useful for this scenario.
--
Greg
Okay here's why I want to do it.
The first table contains just data.
The second table will be a view whose data can change depending on
other external factors. It could change daily.
Yes this second table could be an association but I would have
preferred it not to be.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:
Frank Kim wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I want to create a model that uses two tables for its data. Is that
> possible or just a bad idea? I don't want to do the has_one because I
> want to avoid the extra dereferencing.
I usually avoid doing this, but...
"I want to create a creature with two hands.
5 matches
Mail list logo