Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: "vc" <boston103@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Mar 2006 05:48:47 -0800
Jan Hidders wrote:
Brian Selzer wrote:
In other words, a database schema consisting of the relation schemata,
R{A, B}, S{B, C}, and T{C, A}
and the foreign key constraints,
R(B) --> S(B), S(C) --> T(C), T(A) --> R(A)
is equivalent to a database schema consisting of the same relation schemata
and the foreign key constraints,
R(A) --> T(A), T(C) --> S(C), S(B) --> R(B)
is equivalent to a database schema consisting of the relation schema
U(A, B, C) where A, B, and C are candidate keys.
Actually, none of them are equivalent. Consider the following database
instances: (formatted assuming fixed width font)
R : A B S : B C T : C A
--- --- ---
1 2 2 3 3 1
4 3
Re-reading the original message I think your objection is valid since
Brian apparently claimed that *any * set of tables with circular
foreign key constraints is equivalent to U which is only the case if
the foreign keys involved were also candidate keys as you mentioned
below.
This is an instance of the first schema, but not of the second. A
similar example shows thre is an instance of the second schema that is
not an instance of the first schema:
R : A B S : B C T : C A
--- --- ---
1 3 3 2 2 1
3 4
Finally, it is clear that these two instances cannot be represented in
the third schema since the join would lose tuples. So they are really
all three different.
What *is* true is that the following schema:
- R(A,B), with cand. keys {A} and {B}
- S(B,C), with cand. keys {B} and {C}
- T(C,A), with cand. keys {C} and {A}
- foreign keys:
R[B] -> S[B], S[B] -> R[B],
S[C] -> T[C], T[C] -> S[C],
T[A] -> R[A], R[A] -> T[A]
Is equivalent with the schema:
- U(A,B,C) with cand. keys {A}, {B} and {C}
So perhaps that is what you meant?
-- Jan Hidders
.
- References:
- circular relationships ok?
- From: Volker Hetzer
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: vc
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: vc
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: vc
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: circular relationships ok?
- From: Jan Hidders
- circular relationships ok?
- Prev by Date: Re: circular relationships ok?
- Next by Date: Which book do these appendices come from?
- Previous by thread: Re: circular relationships ok?
- Next by thread: Re: circular relationships ok?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|