On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:36:31 -0700, Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno, > > > It wouldn't have to be a dummy table. You could have both sets of > > data > > in the same table. > > Per my original e-mail, this is not an option. > > Basically, the two tables have nothing in commmon *except* that events > can be scheduled against either table. Otherwise, the two tables have > vastly different data, which comes from completely different sources, > and is related to a totally different set of dependant tables. > > So, no go. > > I run into this sort of thing a lot. Is it just the way I design > databases, or is there a need for a more sophisticated model of > relationality for SQL03?
This sounds like a design issue. This makes it seem like the events should be broken out into their own table and the other two tables should get joined with the events table when needed. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
