nice diagram

everything appears to make sense

as for the circular relationship, are you worried about tbl_locale.locale_self_ref? this is the correct structure for a hierarchy, like the who-reports-to-whom manager-employee relationship

unfortunately, a "circular" relationship is possible in such a structure -- mary reports to bill who reports to fred who reports to mary

if you are really concerned about it, you have to put logic into your application to see that it doesn't happen

sorry, i do not have any examples of that logic

rudy
http://rudy.ca/

geepers, paul, do you really think that after almost six years john is still interested in design suggestions?

the app was probably written long ago, and may already have been retired

Rudy sees a post show up that he has answered before. Rudy clicks on it and finds that it is very old.
Rudy reads the new post and finds that it repeats what Rudy said six years ago, but with more words than Rudy used.
This is what annoyed Rudy.
See Rudy? See Rudy get annoyed. Get annoyed, Rudy.
See Rudy post. Post, Rudy! Post!
Rudy feels much better now. Goodbye Rudy!

i keep telling you, you gotta stop taking those chems on the weekend, blindman, they make you sound like a five-year-old

we like you better as an adult

:p

Rudy

I found this discussion whilst searching for information on circular references.

It maybe an old listing but it is still 'live', and as it contains misleading information I thought it best to correct that, on the assumption that others may come across it when searching for similar information.

It was my understanding that it was the purpose of these forums to help the user community by contributing information.

It was not my intention to upset you Rudy, and I apologise if my posting caused you concern.

Paul

upset? me, upset? concerned? not in the slightest

although i am a bit curious about what you think might have been "misleading"

i've re-read my post and i don't see anything misleading in it at all

i don't see how i've confused anybody except perhaps yourself

:D

Also, just FYI - nothing gets marked as "resolved" here (I know it does in many other forums). As such, everything is "open" (unless locked by a mod) but typically we consider any thread with no recent posts to be "dead".

Not making a fuss or owt - just part of the whole DBForums Orientation Experience for New Members :)

Rudy does slightly confuse the issue here though, as a heirarchy is not the same thing as a circular relationship. That is when Entitiy A relates to Entity B, Entity B relates to Entity C and Entity C relates to Entitiy A.
Rudy never said that a hierarchy is the same thing as a circular relationship, so Rudy did not confuse anything.

Also Rudy uses "-- mary reports to bill who reports to fred who reports to mary" as an example. This would just not be sound business sense.
Rudy uses that as an example of a circular relationship, which it is. Rudy does not recommend this as a good business practice. Rudy even recommends that the poster add logic to prevent this.

thanks, blindman

yeah, and to think i said all that six years ago, when i was still wet behind the ears...

Rudy's example
"-- mary reports to bill who reports to fred who reports to mary" is an example of a circular reference of the data, not a circular relationship.

No, "mary reports to bill who reports to fred who reports to mary" is definitely a circular relationship. If this does not qualify as a circular relationship, please give an example of one that does.

Example of circular relationship

students are on a course; the course is made up of units; the students must achieve the units.

I have attached Word doc showing the basic un-normalised LDS.

Circular relationships are not something we would want, as they can lead to data redundancy and update anomolies.

The ideal situation is to normalise. This usually involves normalisation beyond 3NF.

A work round is to use a CHECK contstraint instead of referential integrity, which effectivley breaks the circle (although may still leave redundant data)

i'm sorry, but there's nothing "circular" about that example

and it does not need to be "solved" because it's already normalized

i'm sorry, but there's nothing "circular" about that example

and it does not need to be "solved" because it's already normalized
Agreed. That is most definitely NOT circular. It merely has multiple relationship paths.

"Circular" implies that a process returns to its starting point, as Rudy's example does and your example does not.

Aw - I thought this thread was about to get interesting. I nearly bookmarked it yesterday.

Signing off in search of common sensewe enjoyed your brief stay

don't let the door hit you on the way out

:D

I joined this forum looking for serious professional and intellectual debate
I think not, since you bailed when two people actually took issue with your statements.

I'm really thinking we should put up a "forum ettiquette" page where we list useful advice such as "Before you dredge up a five year old thread to point out the errors made by someone with 10,000+ posts, double-check to make sure you really understand both the question and the response." Or perhaps just shorten it to "Don't go hunting tigers with a pea-shooter."

Unless you have a seriously big pea shooter! :p

Dude, lets keep the shameless boasting to a minimum.