• barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    One of the reasons women will find this repugnant is because they didn’t normalize their tables. Should be boyfriend_id is null.

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Or, if you allow for polyamory and non-hetero relationships, you probably need a rel table (and some joins in the query).

      Maybe GIRLS is just a view…

    • rwhitisissle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Maybe it’s supposed to imply that boyfriend is an attribute of the particular girl. Like saying she isn’t someone’s boyfriend. It’s probably a holdover from the original data architecture and nobody ever bothered to modify the table later on in case there’s a select somewhere that expects that field to exist.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      That structure doesn’t handle polyamorous and cheating relationships very well. It should probably have and (select top 1 1 from dbo.relationships r where r.partner_a != GIRLS.id or r.partner_b != GIRLS.id) which would handle also LGBT+ relationships or relationships that are better represented as a graph.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The relationships table should also have enum for relationship type. It might be friends, family, platonic relations etc. Also might want to check sex_drive to handle ace gals and something to do with kinsey scale not to bother lesbians.