I simply gave a database diagram for any DB I produced to the mind database person and she or he put a lot of notes onto it recommending which i relabel certain tables so it's obvious they're research tables (add "lu" to the start of the table title).

My issue is these don't fit the phrase things i think about a lookup table to become. I've always considered a glance up table to essentially be some options that do not define any associations. Example:

id    Make
--    ---------
1     Audi
2     Chevy
3     Ford

The database person inside my jobs are recommending which i relabel several tables which are just IDs maping one table to a different as research tables. Example (Location_QuadMap below):


Location_QuadMap <-- suggesting i rename this to luLocationQuad


Could it be safe to visualize that they misinterpret the diagram or perhaps is there another definition that i'm unaware of?

That which you have there's known as a junction table. It's also called:

  • mix-reference table
  • bridge table
  • join table
  • map table
  • intersection table
  • connecting table
  • link table

But I have never witnessed the word "research table" used for this function.

Pick your battles, but I'd request for that person to explain the naming convention simply because they have recommended utilizing the same convention for just one-to-many and several-to-many associations. Appears like any foreign key relationship means there is a "research" table involved.

If that is the naming convention for other databases, i quickly wouldn't push my luck.

Many people make use of the term Research Table because the table that sits in the center of a many to a lot of relationship.

A research table is generally a table that functions like a "master list" for something and also you utilize it to find information about a company key value (like "Make") in exachange for it's identifier (such as the id column) to be used in certain other table's foreign key column.

Essentially, you are available in with something to "lookupInch and exchange it for another thing.

The place_quadmap around the otherhand is really a bridge table which, as others have previously stated, can be used if you have a many-to-many relationship between two organizations. Should you call that the research table, then I'd say any table might be known as a research table. Individuals tables only contain identifiers with other tables so you'd need to start looking in the id around the one table, lookup the id(s) that match within the bridge table, then look in the matching row(s) within the 3rd table? Appears to become using the term a tad too far.

Mark Byers has got the right definition for your table. Essentially an intersect table. Use whatever database textbook.

But actually I have labored with lots of DBAs/Designers and many invent their very own style for doing things and therefore are not available to hearing other things. Such things as indentation rules, situation for SQL claims, naming conventions for tables (even really bad ones), archival methods, etc... You essentially don't have any choice if they're in charge from the database. You are able to mention it's an intersect table, indicate the correct literature, but ultimately if she would like to refer to it as MyStupidlyLongAndPointlessPrefixForTablesBecauseICan_Research_Location_Quadmap and demands then there's nothing that you can do.

So attempt to point it to her, but when she does not accompany it, do not take it too seriously...

I simply considered another thing. Research tables (our definition) are generally known as code tables too. So she may call intersect tables research tables and research tables code tables. By which situation you might want to learn how to speak her language...