![]() ![]() ![]() Yes - can create table, alter its definition and data, and add new rows.Microsoft Access, Sybase, IBM Db2, Teradataįirebird, HSQL, InterBase, Derby all with JDBC driverĭane Iracleous, Christopher Kramer and othersĬolin Bell, Gerd Wagner, Rob Manning and othersĪccess, Axion Java RDBMS, Apache Derby, Daffodil DB, FileMaker (JDBC), Fujitsu Siemens SESAM/SQL, Firebird, FrontBase, HSQLDB, Hypersonic SQL, H2 (DBMS), IBM Db2, Informix, Ingres, OpenIngres, InstantDB, InterBase, Mckoi SQL Database, Mimer SQL, Netezza, Pointbase, SAPDB, Sybase, Sunopsis XML Driver, Teradata Warehouse, ThinkSQL RDBMS, Vertica Analytic Database. Including SSAS management, and MDX, DMX, and XMLA languagesĬ++/ C# Objective-C Python (programming language) Sybase, IBM Db2, H2, Hypersonic SQL, Amazon Redshift, Apache DerbyĮXASOL, IBM Db2, Apache Derby, Firebird all with JDBC driver InterBase, Firebird, SQL Anywhere, NexusDB and MariaDB ![]() Systems listed on a light purple background are no longer in active development. This article is neither all-inclusive nor necessarily up to date. Please see individual product articles for further information. The issue: How do we best store in database which Site is the Owner of a work order, when there can only be 1 Site that Owns a work order.ĭo we have "OwnerSiteId" as a column in the WorkOrder table, or would it be ok to reference the many-to-many relationship instead, saying "that one" is the owner.The following tables compare general and technical information for a number of available database administration tools. ![]() 1 WorkOrder may be accessed by many Sites.1 Site may have access to many Work orders.UPDATE: I'll include another variation of the same issue. The problem here is that I get even less help from the DB design with ensuring that the "current role" of a person, is a role that is actually "allowed".Īny thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated =) I keep the associative entity simple, and instead I have FK in persons table that points to a specific role in the Roles table. It would only be code that prevents it.Ģ: (See bottom part of image linked below) What if, the FK in the persons table references that relationship of another user. Only, I also see potential disaster here: This also feels like a good way to make sure that the user can only have a role as current, if he has access to the role. What I like about this design is that it's pretty easy to get a list of all allowed roles for a person, and then you simply point to one of those allowed roles, saying "you're the current/active one". I'm just not entirely sure if this includes the Roles and Persons entities. It seems ok for "other entities" to reference this relationship. In the persons table, you include a nullable FK to the many-to-many relationship (the association entity). Say the user got a selection of 5 roles to choose from, and depending on which role he currently has chosen, the application will present him with different views / menus / buttons / etc. This is pretty straight forward with a many-to-many relationship, but the tricky part comes when you want to allow the user to select which role he is currently "operating" as. Now 1 person may be assigned 0 or more roles. In the example below I have two tables, Persons and Roles. I'm currently designing a database model and I've come across an issue, where I'd like some more input on what's considered the proper way of doing things. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |