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

Susan,

You could probably use one in your in Salato database if it were larger.  Keep disposal details 
in a second table for example.  :)

On 4 Jan 2015 at 11:10, Susan Harkins wrote:

> 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
> >
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>