We have a database structure to design for NewsItems. They relate to Topics and to Countries. Any NewsItem can relate to nil, one or many countries; and to nil, one or many Topics. Later we need to be able to search for NewsItems as broadly as possible: by country, by topic, by combination of country and topic etc.
I thought we should set up a Country table, a Topic table and a NewsItem table, and then store a record in an Intersection table which had a CountryID, a TopicID and a NewsItemID. So if a NewsItem related to 2 countries and 3 topics there would be six records put into it.
Someone else suggested we do without the Country table, and just treat countries as a kind of topic. The Intersection table would then have just a TopicID and a NewsItemID. So if a NewsItem related to 2 countries and 3 topics there would be five records put into it. This seems to represent a saving.
I am sure there is something inherently wrong with this, but I am blowed if I could come up with it. I muttered some buzzwords like "data cube" and "normalised" so I think I got away with my reputation intact for the moment but I could use some ammunition later. Can anyone point out any obvious flaws in the second structure?
Obviously I am biased toward solutions that support my own thinking, but if someone shows why the second structure IS OK, I will nevertheless (hopefully gracefully) still award points for it, admit I was incorrect at work and ask for the official Office Dunce Cap to wear for the statutary week (we're a pretty enlightened office - we're only burnt at the stake if we make coding errors).