Hi there

I'm a newbie but eager to learn!! Sorry if the question is absurd.

1. I create 2 new Tables (aka Base Tables) named Company and Contact. Both have a primary key.

2. In the relationship graph, I have the TOs and want to build a relationship between them (Anchor-Buoy). So I will need foreign keys in both.

My question: Do I already create the foreign key fields in the Base Tables or only when building the relationship (TO)?

Sorry again...😉

 

I always have a foreign key field in tables I am creating once I wire it up to a parent I will rename the foreign key field to identify it's parent such as uid_company you don't necessarily need a foreign key in company unless it is a child of some other entity.

 

8 minutes ago, Ocean West said:

I always have a foreign key field in tables I am creating once I wire it up to a parent I will rename the foreign key field to identify it's parent such as uid_company you don't necessarily need a foreign key in company unless it is a child of some other entity.

 

So if I take the database I'm working on (music sheet db), I have 3 Base tables: WOR_Work, PER_Person and GEN_Genre.

In the graph, I rename the PTO T01_Work, T02_Person, T03_Genre and create buoys.

Do you mean: in the base tables I already create foreign key fields, ex _IDf_Work, _IDf_Person, etc. , even though only the TO will be in a relationship?

2 hours ago, centauri272 said:

in the base tables I already create foreign key fields, ex _IDf_Work, _IDf_Person, etc. , even though only the TO will be in a relationship?

Fields are property of a (base) table, not of any particular table occurrence. IOW, all TOs of the same table have exactly the same fields.

3 hours ago, centauri272 said:

So I will need foreign keys in both.

As already noted, in a one-to-many relationship, only the child (many) table needs to have a foreign key to the parent (one) table. This key is matched to the parent's primary key.

 

Aaaahh ok 👌🏼😊

Thanks a lot. I'm so happy having found this forum 😄

This is just an opinion, but keep it simple. 
 

Company->Company_Contact. Related by Company::Id ->Contact::CompanyId. I know some name table occurrences with codes, but I’ve not seen the need or the payoff.  I line up all my anchor table occurrences vertically and alphabetically. I almost never scroll right in the relationship graph. It’s kept me efficient this way. 
I create foreign keys as I need them, but ideally you’ve planned most of the data model before you open FileMaker.

in fact, we’d rather help you there before you go off on the wrong direction. 

15 hours ago, bcooney said:

This is just an opinion, but keep it simple. 
 

Company->Company_Contact. Related by Company::Id ->Contact::CompanyId. I know some name table occurrences with codes, but I’ve not seen the need or the payoff.  I line up all my anchor table occurrences vertically and alphabetically. I almost never scroll right in the relationship graph. It’s kept me efficient this way. 
I create foreign keys as I need them, but ideally you’ve planned most of the data model before you open FileMaker.

in fact, we’d rather help you there before you go off on the wrong direction. 

I agree. Actually I had planned the data model, but everything crashed in my head when I read on a website that the Relationship Graph IS NOT an ERD, and when I decided to go from spider to anchor-buoy. I can assure you that I've been going in the wrong direction for quite some time...😁

This is what happens when you do first and think after...

Some light reading: 

http://www.alquimia-digital.com/filemaker/Key Concepts in FMP7.pdf

http://www.nightwingenterprises.com/Resources/approaches_to_graph_modeling_en.pdf

1 hour ago, Ocean West said:

Some light reading: 

http://www.alquimia-digital.com/filemaker/Key Concepts in FMP7.pdf

http://www.nightwingenterprises.com/Resources/approaches_to_graph_modeling_en.pdf

Thank you 👏 😊. I kinda like figure 10 in the 2nd file 😏

I'm going to read this thoroughly 🤓

Thanks again @Ocean West and @bcooney, your comments helped me a lot 😊