Circular many to many relationship

[Mark Wild]

I am now not sure if I am approaching this issue in the correct way.

I have 3 tables, Swaps, Loans and Agreements

To model the relationships, each table has a many to many relationship with the next (have no problems setting up the intermediary tables) but is not required, so no referential integrity can be enforced.

What I’ve ended up with is a circular chain of the three tables, each with an intermediary table in between, without referential integrity.

To me, this sounds rather odd and not something I’m happy with. Can anyone advise on any problems that might arise from this and suggest a solution?

I’ve attached the relationship to help clarify my ramblings. Please revert if you have any questions.

Thanks and regards,

M

 

[FoFa]

Can you have a loan tied to an agreement without a trade?

 

[Mark Wild]

yes you can

 

[FoFa]

Can one single (either one of the three) be tied to two of the others at the same time (example one loan tied to an agreement and a trade).

 

[Mark Wild]

It can indeed.

I had originally modelled it with Agreements in the middle and the two other tables on the side; ie Everything would have an agreement and could have many of either/both of the other tables.

Sadly, the business has changed their spec to require the option to have a trade and a loan but without an agreement (something that in analysis was ruled out...).

I'm meeting some seniors later to get them to justify the flexibility that is being built into the system. THe problem is that the treasury team here is likley to pick up the T. function from one of our subsideries and thus we need the ability to book "both sides" of our business onto the one system.

Thus, at the moment, this question is now whether this approach is possible or do I stand my ground and not make the change.

Who says the customer is always right?

 

[Mark Wild]

FoFa,

Many thanks for your help. I've just come out of the meeting (I love quickies) and the business have decided to only record their own deals on the system as otherwise there are so many ifs and buts that I'd have to build in.

Back to a good old fashioned parent/child relationship structure with RI.

Cheers,

Mark