|
|
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
|
|