If table B is really an "add on" table for table A, then you have a "parent / child" relationship, yes?

In that caxse, you should NOT use an identity column for table B key1, but instead, just define B.key1 as a bigint, and populate it with the corresponding value from table A, hence ensuring the "relationship" (to allow for easy joins, etc.). 

Does that "make sense"?

Mark S. Waterbury

On Thursday, January 30, 2020, 4:40:44 PM EST, Jay Vaughn <jeffersonvaughn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So i have table A (keyed by identity column), and index A (keyed by key1,

I have table B (keyed by identity column) and index B (keyed by key1, key2
- same defined keys as in index A)

table B is really just an "additional information" table for the rows and
keys defined in table A.

How can I apply some kind of referential integrity over table B to allow
table B keyed rows to be deleted if table A similar keyed rows are
deleted?  Likewise if table A key value changes, table B key values change.

I know I am probably dreaming.  I just don't want to go handle this stuff



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.