[AccessD] Confused by One to Many versus One to One

In fact, the only way I've ever seen a 1-to-1 relationship used was to 
make a table of confidential employee data that shouldn't appear in the 
general employee info table.  I read an example once, suggested for a 
library database, but I honestly didn't understand it at all.
TNF

Tina Norris Fields
tinanfields-at-torchlake-dot-com
231-322-2787

On 11/30/2014 2:57 PM, Jim Dettman wrote:
> Bill,
>
>   It's pretty rare to have a 1 to 1.  Pretty much everything will be a 1 to M
> or a M to M.
>
> Jim.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Bill Benson
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 07:52 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: [AccessD] Confused by One to Many versus One to One
>
> I almost never make relationships one to one, and yet my databases always
> seem to "work." By work, I mean that I never seem to run into situations
> where I cannot accomplish what I want to, in terms of record insertion,
> queries, etc. So I now have a situation where maybe that is not a good idea.
>
>   
>
> I have Order and Product tables, one order can contain many products. So I
> required an OrderProducts table to distribute the same OrderID across
> numerous ProductIDs.
>
>   
>
> My question is, should the relationship between the Order and OrderProduct,
> on the OrderID and FKOrderID, be 1-to-1, or 1-to-many?
>
>   
>
> Likewise, the same question for the OrderProduct and the Product, on the
> ProductID and the FKProductID?
>
>   
>
>   
>