My understanding is that, given tables Alpha and Beta that the table
which holds the 1-to-1 relation will be called Alpha_Beta (or is it
alpha_beta?). So far so good.
alpha_beta will have, lets say, two fields: alpha_id and beta_id.
that it’d be a good idea for those two fields to form a compound primary
key, ensuring there are no duplicates.
However, RoR doesn’t support compound primary keys. So, does table
alpha_beta require its own id for a primary key? If so, that’s what
drives me up the wall about Microsoft Access. Else, the option is to
alpha_id, or beta_id, as the primary key. Either of those options seem
sub-optimal to my mind, and, really, the choice would be entirely
arbitrary. Unless, for consistency, it’s just the “first” one, which,
really, while predictable, is still arbitrary in that it’s no better
the “second” one (alphabetically wise).
Do I understand how RoR works correctly? If I made an error with the
naming conventions, or anything else, please do correct me
also, it’s standard to have three databases: