Mailing-List: contact torque-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <41B7428E.5070305@numerixtechnology.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:06:06 +0000
From: T E Schmitz <mailreg@numerixtechnology.de>
Reply-To: mailreg@numerixtechnology.de
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Torque Users List <torque-user@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: AW: Saving associated objects
References: <9B336061971E8B4E8A324C63BEB2D2EE8C0CB7@ex1.GT.local>
 <1102523592.29768.5.camel@r2d2>
In-Reply-To: <1102523592.29768.5.camel@r2d2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Sarav,

Saravana Krishnan wrote:

> My other doubt is, if it's a 1:1 relation between 2 tables, why not
> simply merge them? What's the point in having 2 tables with 1:1
> relations.

I can think of two examples:

1) You might have two entities that require address data. You don't want 
to dupicate the address structure. The address relates to exactly one 
row in one of the two tables.

2) You use Torque and you have an entity which has an associated image 
per row. The auto-generated code fetches *every* attribute of a table. 
But you certainly don't want to read the images each time you doSelect n 
records. I have such a case: I store the image in a separate table 
PICTURE. In the application, the user can choose search criteria to 
display a list of PRODUCTs, might be 1000+ records. When he 
double-clicks a row, he gets the detail view with the PICTURE.

-- 

Regards/Gru�,

Tarlika Elisabeth Schmitz

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org