Database design: multiple "options" tables vs. a single table -
I believe that all of us have seen this design requirement in one or another form.
The software needs to be offered for a variety of different queries / settings. Many such questions can easily cross 50 in a big project.
Now.
Do you have to fix 50+ tables with similar designs? etc. And then these tables are linked through foreign keys like this: In addition to multiplying tables with similar structure in F What are the advantages and disadvantages of Irst matters and there is no lack of integrity in the other?
[tab] [user's settings] ([user id] not unique identifier null , [Setting 1aid] is not a unique identifier, [setting 2 id] is not unique identifier) or is it more sensible to create a "master" option table?
create table [dbo]. [Settings] ([ID] is not a unique identifier, [name] varchar (max) faucet [SettingCode] INT not zero)
I had to go with the last option in the lookup table, but a slightly different naming scheme ...
"Settings", where you store different names / descriptions of settings, with the primary key for each. Then, divide users into settings in another table. Unlimited settings, unlimited user / setting relationship
Settings
Settings ID - Primary Key
SettingName
User Settings
UserID
setting ID
Comments
Post a Comment