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

I don't have the serious development experience that most of you have, so
my 2 cents is really just 2 cents, but in my experience, 1 to 1
relationships are the result of business rules and not something the data
itself requires. I've only had to deal with one once. Charlotte, I think we
wrote about them, didn't we? I tried to find something online, but
couldn't. Perhaps it was in Inside Access -- just don't remember.

Susan H.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Charlotte Foust <charlotte.foust at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, I've used that approach many times in exactly that kind of situation,
> Stuart.
>
> Charlotte
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Stuart McLachlan <stuart at lexacorp.com.pg>
> wrote:
>
> > On reason for 1-1 is where you have a large number of fields common to
> all
> > records and a lot
> > more that only apply to one type of record.
> >
> > One possible example would be a vehicle fleet with a mixture of leased
> and
> > owned vehicles.
> > Instead of fields for all the lease details in every vehicle record, you
> > put the lease details in a
> > second table with a 1-1 relationship.
> >
> >
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>