[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Here are my responses to your questions:<\/p>\n
You\u2019re getting good at removing redundancies. Your diagram looks good. The only suggestion, I\u2019d make is why do you have a play table and then 3 separate play type tables? Why not add them together in on Table called Play. It\u2019d sit exactly where Play currently sits in your diagram and contain the same attributes it already does, but you also add the following:<\/p>\n
a. Type \u2013 Would be a string that you could place \u201cDrama\u201d, \u201cComedy\u201d, or \u201cTradegy\u201d in so you\u2019d know exactly what type of play it is. Also this would allow you to add future play types to the plays table and not have to add a whole new table to the DB.<\/p>\n
b. Sub_Type \u2013 Would also be a string and hold the type that you currently have under the separate tables. They are all essentially the same attribute in each table and would just hold different type descriptors depending on the parent Type.<\/p>\n
c. Main_Character \u2013 Would be a string that holds the main character, because in your three separate tables, you have main characters. You\u2019re just calling them 3 separate things. (get the direction I\u2019m going in here? )<\/p>\n
d. Secondary_Character \u2013 Would be a string that holds the secondary character. You have a secondary character in your dramas and comedies, but non in your tradegies so in tradegy records this column would wind up being null. See what I did there? You now have one table where you used to have 4, and in that one table you can retrieve all the same information you had in those 4 separate tables. Hopefully that\u2019ll make your life easier.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n