Mike, thanks for your reply.
On 11 April 2013 17:55, Mike Dewhirst <mi...@dewhirst.com.au> wrote: > On 11/04/2013 4:41pm, Lachlan Musicman wrote: >> >> At the moment I have tables on the database: >> >> account_account >> account_account_parents >> account_account_children >> account_account_partners >> account_account_siblings >> > > Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but I have always had a design > in the back of my mind for such a set of relationships. > > I think it needs a single table for all the people and a through table > carrying sufficient information to accurately describe each relationship. > This would deliver flexibility to describe any possible relationship > including client, supplier, apprentice etc. You might be right. Those tables are created when I sync - it's not been a design decision I made, I tried a couple of methods and found the mieows was the one that seemed to make the most sense. > I don't think it would be as complex as a multi-table design like yours but > that would depend on what your system has to achieve. What you say is true, although it would be hard to get the reverse relationships with random relationships - how does a through table parenting relationship know that it's reverse is a child relationship? For instance. Oh, I guess it doesn't matter, that's done via related_name et al. Good idea. Have you done any work on it at all? L. -- The new creativity is pointing, not making. Likewise, in the future, the best writers will be the best information managers. http://www.theawl.com/2013/02/an-interview-with-avant-garde-poet-kenneth-goldsmith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
