X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j/pHuIKqXC6l54sbsqymGLWsmHj14rFuxBXombOiMzc=; b=RxxzBKYcOhWkJZ3SsATl0m8IHP0P7qE8eOlKr4EVzQV9AFZL6Yctmcn1a+rVA3ofa4 acLZn+CkuB05zXbTnCoRes/otzgBTNsdPiNDfIt6KjXRX4jWICl+UZPhDx5vX6IztU2H q8CUXta1GBjCYHl1k5IQX6gzMJomcB3cxCTpkmq7jf3PUS+A51C/KtIK9ww7BQwgW2hS GYT8SdMg89aiiwwzguVwGd9oh1SvcShUqzx5eVV8lYMpsljtrUSCotKcOqz9BSwW2u66 NCWwdM+RL8MnvITvI2pEPNoAk/O6+4fstOc+T8HrDdM/L+H3OcMMrmLgHSYiFhO/0bFg Gb+A== X-Received: by 10.152.21.71 with SMTP id t7mr23931697lae.118.1440493756680; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:09:15 +0200 From: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb file format Message-Id: <20150825110915.c382ebf9b09ffecc3dcd56f8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20150824223846 DOT 0ba61ba7 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <20150825022302 DOT 21819 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk If you by redundancy more than one link have to change if something is changed for example a link in two directions I think you are correct and redundancy should be avoided. If a search in opposite direction of link is needed it could be done then needed but it may of course be to time consuming. On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:24:41 +0200 "Levente (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" wrote: > Thanks for the comment. I don't really see how can we can implement the > that any to any object attachments with FKs. Can you make an example? > > I'll make the names shorter. > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Lev (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > > Here I propose the file format of the next generation of PCB. > > .. > > > Okay. I'm not a database architect, and you can now start throwing > > > > Thanks for starting to do this. I do architect databases and for > > edacore I would work hard to avoid an N:N table. They aren't great. > > It's better to have explicit FKs between tables. I might have a > > single table which includes columns for all types of objects, and I > > would have a group table with a FK parent field refering to itself. > > > > Please eliminate all the redundancy in your schema. pcb_object -> pcb > > pcb_id -> id and so on. Otherwise queries become immensely verbose. > > It looks like it is important to qualify every column, but actually > > in queries if there is any ambiguity then columns can optionally be > > qualified with the table name, and if there isn't any then the > > redundancy is avoided. This is a matter of style, but I think an > > important one for efficiency and both readability and writability of > > queries down the line. > > > > > > > I know that sqlite is yet another dependency > > > > It's fine, don't worry. > > > > > > //Peter > >