Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

2
  • It might be bad design. I had the 2 tables - images and profiles. Each image could be assigned to one or more profiles. Since i will have ~1000 images and only ~20 profiles, for optimalizaation purpose i didnt want to create table imagexprofile - where i would bind both ID together ( image1 goes to profile 1, image1 goes to profile3, image2 goes to profile3 etc). But i think i will return to that idea and use indexes instead. Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 14:13
  • @Thomas There's nothing wrong with creating a ProfileImages table (personal preference for the name, as the profile is the dominant table in this relationship). I'm assuming this is a many-to-many relationship (i.e. a single image can be used on multiple profiles, and a single profile can have multiple images)? The way you describe it, it sort of sounds like a profile would only have a single image. If that's the case, then you should just have a foreign key in your profiles table linking to the id field of your images table. Commented Apr 14, 2011 at 14:28