[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Create multiple sqlite tables, many-to-many design

On 2019-08-13 19:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:50 AM Dave via Python-list
> <python-list at python.org> wrote:
>> Some of the tables are related.  For example:
>> Hiking_Table             Trails_Table            Joining_Table
>> -----------------        --------------------    -----------------
>> hike_id     PK           trail_id  PK            hike_id   FK
>> hike_date  TEXT          trail_name  TEXT        trail_id   FK
>> hike_destination TEXT    trail_rating REAL
>> hike_rating  REAL        trail_comments TEXT
>> hike_comments  TEXT
>> So far, so good.  I know how to create the tables.  What I am struggling
>> with is how do I insert data into the joining table or don"t I?  If so,
>> do I need to query the other two tables to get the auto-number ID's?
>> Some things I have read suggest that the joining table just contains
>> references, so there is no actual insert.  A pointer to information how
>> to do this would be appreciated.  As for queries, I think I use joins,
>> but a pointer on how to do this would also be appreciated.
> The joining table is a real thing, and will have real inserts. It
> might be easier to think of this as two separate one-to-many
> relationships; for the sake of demonstration, I'm going to add another
> column to your joining table.
> hike_sections ==> hike_id references hikes, trail_id references
> trails, companion_name
> You've decided to have someone with you for some sections of your
> hike. As such, what we have is a number of "mini-hikes" that make up a
> single hike (that's a one-to-many relationship between hikes and
> sections), and also a single trail can be a section of any number of
> hikes (so, another one-to-many relationship between trails and
> sections). For any given section, there is exactly one companion.
> Does this make the many-to-many relationship a bit easier to
> understand? It'll work exactly the same way even if you have no
> ancillary information in that joining table.
Might I also suggest dropping unnecessary prefixes from the field names. 
For example, "hike_comments" in "Hiking_Table" can be called just 
"comments" because it's clear from the context that a field called 
"comments" in the hiking table will contain comments about hiking, if 
you see what I mean.