Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • +1, but have a look at my answer to see what the rationale behind option #2 may be. Commented Dec 30, 2012 at 20:42
  • After some thought and based on the notes from the OP that the parts are an absolute fixed standard per regulation, I agree to Option #1 and +1 for the good answer, though he should definitely keep in mind Option #3 may be a migration point in the future, also important because nobody else mentioned it: Outer joins have poor performance characteristics in general and should be avoided where possible Just adding that because Option #1 will involve outer joins, but in this case is still probably worth the cost as Option #3 has it's own performance pitfalls. Commented Jan 2, 2013 at 16:04
  • 2
    Option 1 may seem too basic? No way, that's definitely the way to do it. Jimmy is wrong, outer joins do not have poor performance characteristics in general. As long as you index properly it'll be fine. Commented Jan 4, 2013 at 3:58