Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. USAndy Etheridge
    primarykey
    data
    text
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. COInstead of doing it this way, could you throw away your Relationship entity and instead just create instances of ClassA and ClassB and link them together via their relationship? You could add an attribute to these entities to indicate that it is placeholder instead of a fully populated entity?
      singulars
    2. COIf the keywords are common to multiple CHECKLISTs then use a many-to-many relationship. In this case there would only be a single KEYWORD entity with a property of "marty" and it would have a relationship to each CHECKLIST that has "marty" in the normalisedName. This way you are searching a smaller number of entities. If common keywords are rare then don't bother with the KEYWORDS entity, just use your normalisedName field. You might want to include a space at the start and end of this field so that you can to startswith style searches by prepending a space to the search text.
      singulars
    3. COCould you give an example of the strings that are actually stored in KEYWORDS for a particular CHECKLIST. Would different CHECKLISTs ever have the same search keys words? I am wondering whether your relationship should be many-to-many with each KEYWORD record containing a single word? E.g. a search for "wibble" would return a single KEYWORD that has relationship to all CHECKLISTs that match this search. This would make the search more efficient if the number of KEYWORDS is much less than the number of CHECKLISTS. Whether this is the case or not will depend on your data.
      singulars
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload