DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	b=Q6mY1NJU4GjPJJgPZMYrgklTfL/Rvfgbqw6/Ih5YnXpLGEkduRDl1XmHV1PXQaLPXs
	hvpRrTK338etN1+q4RmaAVnTxJgkVytYazywq5XLNLietq+sthzJqpaAKos7DUXqXOzc
	kSqYLa1RRrxUhM/394h6wHSV6z4R16TT8l6ug=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20100303153831.GA20503@apartia.fr>
References: <20100303150227.GA18661@apartia.fr>
	<396486431003030714s48b239e2ub8b58a49b9aa29e4@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100303151900.GA19735@apartia.fr>
	<396486431003030729x17f921bcr7ff439113a5644ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100303153831.GA20503@apartia.fr>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:57:48 -0800
Message-ID: <396486431003030757q115b977lde82c4bf443f4b0d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: check constraint on multiple tables?
From: Richard Broersma <richard.broersma@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand
<vindex+lists-pgsql-sql@apartia.org> wrote:

> Each ship is different and has specific cabin types and categories. Of
> course there is some overlap between ships but I thought it simpler (or
> more elegant) to use that hierarchy. Maybe my schema is wrong?

I'm probably ignorant about ships, but are ships like air planes in
that all ships belong to a similar class/construction?   i.e. all
Bowing 747 are essentially configured that same.  Can you define ship
classes that each ship belongs?   You describe cabin_category as if it
is actually an area of this ship,  would all ships of a class have
nearly identical ship_areas/cabin_categories?

> I could add an id_ship to 'cabin' but that would make two (potentialy
> conflicting) relations to 'ship'.

It true that more refinement is necessary.  As you've mentioned that
this hierarchy will have overlap, this is an indication of a violation
of the second normal form (I believe).


-- 
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.

Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug