I've 10 database tables A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J. Four seem to be necessary, but six seem to be just link tables that outcomes of individuals four tables. I'm thinking about creating a generic link table with this so

A, B, C, D, Link

Works exactly the same way as before with the exception that the hyperlink table provides all connecting exactly what the old six tables i did so. I want three posts for that Link table (subject, target, type).

Do you consider this will make sense or perhaps is a smart approach?

Whether it makes any difference, how big the hyperlink table shouldn't get large. The type column is TINYINT. Among the link subjects is User, which virtually defines how large the whole link table could possibly get. You will see some what 5% more rows within the table than you will find rows within the User table.

Personally, no I would not do that.

Yes, it could look "excessive" to possess six link tables for four base data tables. However ,: would you profit from getting only a single link table, however you need to start adding a kind towards the link (it is a link from table A to table D or something like that else), also it all will get rather untidy.

In my experience, the clearness of having the ability to see that two tables are linked, due to there being a hyperlink table together, is a lot more important than getting a couple of tables less. That actually does not create a large impact by any means - neither when it comes to disk space, nor when it comes to performance is likely to be advantageous.....

So again: why bother? Possess a obvious and proper design, and merely accept the truth that relational databases require a couple of assistant tables between their primary tables to create the "miracle" work - and do not worry an excessive amount of about this fact.....