Message-ID: <31766721.1075844000395.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:48:00 -0800 (PST)
From: matt.smith@enron.com
To: lsommaripa@pirnie.com
Subject: Re: PR Database
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Matt Smith
X-To: "Sommaripa, Leo" <LSommaripa@PIRNIE.COM>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Matthew_Smith_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: SMITH-M
X-FileName: msmith18.nsf

Leo,

Well, actually that is how I spell my name as well...but not Enron - one of 
the drawbacks to working for a large company.  Your analysis of the database 
structure and its intent is correct.  The extra table enables the use of a 
many-to-many relationship between regulatory items and facilities.  Joanne 
and I previously discussed the need to "keep track" of all facilities 
referenced in a particular order.  This relationship allows users to query 
facility and review data related to an order.  For instance, if an order 
required the upgrade of chlorination facilities at several plants, one could 
develop a query and report that produced the results of all equipment 
inspections for the related facilities.  This would not be possible (or at 
least not achieved as easily) without the many to many relationship.  So yes, 
you are giving up functionality, so I would only consider eliminating the 
table if it would causing undo problems with the database.  As far as 
actually modifying the database, there would be some manual labor required 
for those orders with multiple facilities already assigned.  

I have to go, but if you or Joanne need to discuss it over the phone, I'd be 
happy to with a little notice.  

Mat