Gail wrote:
> You'd probably need triggers. It's hard to enforce a 1-1 relationship 
> without.

Thanks!  I just wasn't sure if there was something clever I was missing.

> Depending how many columns are only applicable to one account type, I 
> might take a short cut and put everything in one table. It does depend 
> though.

That doesn't really solve the consistency problem, tho. You could still 
wind up with an account where all the details are null, for example. I 
think SQL is just a bit too lacking in its data definition language to 
enforce some of the more complex constraints (without triggers, at least).

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message