What is the correct table naming convention to use for the one-to-one relationship?

[N Insaidoo]

Please follow my link to view the content of the post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49334304/when-using-notorm-what-is-the-correct-table-naming-convention-to-use-for-the-on

[Allysson David]

I believe that would be solved by adding a computers_id fk inside your employees table.

2018-03-17 6:25 GMT-03:00 N Insaidoo <csproj...@gmail.com>:

Please follow my link to view the content of the post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49334304/when-using-notorm-what-is-the-correct-table-naming-convention-to-use-for-the-on

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NotORM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to notorm+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Allysson David]

Let me add that it would work like N:N in doing so, so you'd have to add an UNIQUE constraint to have a 1:1.

But why would you have a 1:1 relationship instead of just storing everything in the same table? Because of mutable and unmutable data separation maybe? If so, I can kinda understand...