I had never heard of a 'bridge' table in my 30 years of relational database design and modeling.

So I was surprised to see that the author, obviously a newcomer to relational databases, had not yet learned about normalization (illustrated painfully in his design with repeating groups), nor about intersection tables to resolve many-to-many table relationships.

I do agree with one of the responders to this article that there's a "teachable moment" here, when he pointed out that the intersection table (aka 'bridge' table) should have a composite primary key of the two fk_keys, instead of a single surrogate key pk.

Actually I have to throw a criticism here to our good friends at SqlServerCentral.com for allowing this article to be posted. I'm guessing the 90% of the readers of these articles are seasoned practitioners, but even the other 10% need to know the accepted tenets and nomenclature of relational databases. Quality control in order here?

Marvin