X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91722D1B483 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:18:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27623-01 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:17:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from frankenbride.clueinc.net (xd84b4366.ip.e-nt.net [216.75.67.102]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291BCD1B443 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:17:44 -0400 (AST) Received: by frankenbride.clueinc.net (Postfix, from userid 16220) id 98BB6B8AF; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:17:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:17:45 -0500 From: Jamie Lawrence To: Taylor Lewick Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: relationship/table design question Message-ID: <20031204211745.GB18257@clueinc.net> Mail-Followup-To: Taylor Lewick , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <001c01c3b947$8cf3cb70$c0341a41@taylor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001c01c3b947$8cf3cb70$c0341a41@taylor> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Organization: clue inc X-URL: http://www.clueinc.net/ X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200312/47 X-Sequence-Number: 16213 On Tue, 02 Dec 2003, Taylor Lewick wrote: > Hi all, new to postgresql and I have a question about how to lay out my > database. > > I have a database with 4 main tables, organizations, contacts, events, > grants. My thinking here is that organizations can have contacts, sponsor > events, > and sponsor grants, so it is what I would call > the main table. I know how to set up the other tables so that they have a > reference back to org_id. (Basically a foreign key). > > How would I handle it (set up in SQL) if I want to be able to assign a > contact to an event. In the event table, would I make a reference back to > the contact table? Can I have more than one foreign key reference per table Probably not what you want to do. > going to seperate tables? Finally, can I make the reference constraint be No, but see below. (Well, you could using an array or a marshalled field, but I can't imagine why you'd want to.) > able to be NULL. Meaning, can I make it so that an event can, but doesn't > have to have a contact assigned to it? Yes. > The tables (a simplified view) would look like this... > > Organization Table: > org_id > org_name > > Contact Table: > contact_id > contact_name > > Event Table: > event_id > event_name > reference back to org_id in org table > reference back to contact_id in contact_table but there doesn't have to be a > contact associated with this event. Hi there - In general, I would do something along these lines: create table organizations ( id serial primary key, organization text ); create table contacts ( id serial primary key, name text ); create table events ( id serial primary key, name text); create table events_contacts ( id serial primary key, events_id int references events, contacts_id int references contacts ); In order to associate a contact with an event, you insert a row in events_contacts with the appropriate ids of the event and the contact. Some people call this a join table, others a mapping table, others [insert 15 other names for many to many relations]. You'll have to decide how updates and deletes should behave for your purposes, and add in those clauses to the foreign key declarations. HTH, -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.