D'Arcy J.M. Cain skrev: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:00:47 +0800 > Paul Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's marked not null as a result of being part of the primary key for >> that table which I can't really get around. >> >> I can get away with not having the foreign key though, so I'll have to >> go down that path. > > It can't be the primary key and have NULLs. It sounds to me like you > have a design problem somewhere.
Well, I have a couple of times had the "need" to have a primary key/uniqueness constraint with one column nullable (indicating "Not Applicable"). The "problem" is that we have only one NULL, which for comparison purposes is interpreted as "Not Known". Nis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
