Thanks. It's pretty much what we'd thought then. But sometimes you like
to check these things out to avoid the "doh!" that comes later.
Hadley
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 13:39, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2003, Hadley Willan wrote:
>
> > We've been playing with Inheritence and have perhaps not used it
> > correctly.
> >
> > Our original intention was to have a generic table called unit, then we
> > dealing with different types of units, like boats, or cars, or marine
> > outboards for example, they can then inherit off unit and get a common
> > set of attributes.
> >
> > As we've progressed things like the purchase costs for these items needs
> > to be recorded and we've added in a table like, unit_purchase_cost.
> > However, because the unit type car inherits unit, unit_purchase_cost
> > can't use a foreign key that references unit.id because the values are
> > in car.
> >
> > Doing a SELECT * FROM ONLY unit; shows no values as they're all in car.
> >
> > About the only away around this right now we can see is to write our own
> > foreign key triggers, allowing the insert of the value without the
> > referential integrity to the parent class?
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this?
>
> Inheritance is a mess? ;)
>
> Seriously, you'll need to do some sort of workaround (or replacement) for
> the foreign key triggers, you may need to do a workaround on the primary
> key/unique constraint on id (I figure there must be one since otherwise
> the foreign key wouldn't work) since that won't prevent you from inserting
> a car with id 1 and then a boat with id 1 (if you use a sequence and never
> insert manually you don't have to worry about this as much).
--
Hadley Willan > Systems Development > Deeper Design Limited. +64(7)377-3328
hadley.willan@deeperdesign.co.nz > www.deeperdesign.com > +64(21)-28-41-463
Level 1, 4 Tamamutu St, PO Box 90, TAUPO 2730, New Zealand.
