Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I have a table that looks something like this:
ID | Keyword | Category | Sub-Category | Sub-Sub-Category | Sub-Sub-Sub-Category
Do i need to split it up in two tables (a keyword table and a categories table with parent id)
if one keyword can only belong to one category,sub-category…etc. meaning there are no repetition. is there still a need to split it up?
You only need one table to represent a 1-1 mapping. To represent 1-many or many-many mappings, you should use multiple tables.
If a keyword can only correspond to one category/sub-category/sub-sub-category, your current layout should be fine.
One caveat: if you want to search based on the keyword, there could be performance gains for separating the tables. It’s much faster to perform an integer search.
The discussion of storing the keyword values in another table coarsely corresponds to this discussion of storing country names (which are mostly static) in another table. Some key advantages of using another table might be things like (spoken) language independence, fast searching, and ease of updating later on.