从插入角度看，选项1可能会更高效。但由于很多会计交易会影响两个以上的帐户，所以收益可能会大大低于2：1。

选项2会更清楚这些更复杂的事务。也就是说，会计师通常会找到三行

• 借记A $ 100


• / li>
  
• 信用卡C $ 40

比两行更清楚

• 借记A $ 60信用B $ 60


• 借记A $ 40信用C $ 40

如果双方都有多个帐户，那么如何将借方和贷方与单个帐户进行匹配也不太清楚。也就是

• 借记A $ 100


• 借记B $ 30


• 信用卡C $ 60


• 信用卡D $ 70

可以表示为

• 借记A $ 60信用C $ 60


• 借记A $ 40信用D $ 40


• 借记B $ 30信用D $ 30

，但也有其他可能的方法来建立资料模型2的资料。 p>

此外，如果您要通过聚合交易来确定特定帐户的当前余额，选项2会更加高效。

Storing the transaction entry into a double entry accounting database.

I came up with two solutions option 1 and option 2, I was told most banking package chooses option 2 for their database design. However I prefer option 1 over option 2 because it simply makes sense and it is more efficient!

I.e For the 2 movement of funds, option 1 requires 2 records vs option 2 requires 4 records.

I would like to know why the bank would choose option 2 over option 1? what is the reason for this?

Option 1)
TRANSACTION
Credit_AccountId
Debit_AccountId
Amount
...

Option 2)
TRANSACTION
AccountId
Amount
...

Option 1 will potentially be a bit more efficient from an insert perspective. But since a lot of accounting transactions are going to affect more than two accounts, the benefit is likely to be substantially less than 2:1.

Option 2 will be clearer for these more complex transactions. That is, an accountant would normally find three rows

• Debit A $100
• Credit B $60
• Credit C $40

more clear than two rows

• Debit A $60 Credit B $60
• Debit A $40 Credit C $40

If you have multiple accounts on both sides, it would also be a bit unclear how to match up the debits and credits to a single account. That is,

• Debit A $100
• Debit B $30
• Credit C $60
• Credit D $70

could be represented as

• Debit A $60 Credit C $60
• Debit A $40 Credit D $40
• Debit B $30 Credit D $30

but there are also other possible ways to construct the data for data model 2.

Additionally, option 2 is going to be more efficient if you're trying to determine the current balance of a particular account by aggregating the transactions.