On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:33PM -0500, Eric E wrote:
> >maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null
> >values.
> >
> >if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
> >check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
>
>
> I did think
> On 11/17/05, Eric E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What's the best way to do this? My immediate reaction is that I want a
> > partial foreign key, but perhaps this is not a good way to go about such
> > a design.
Normally I just have multiple columns with all but one NULL.
Alternatively
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:36, Eric E wrote:
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls for
every one fu
On 11/17/05, Eric E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>In my database application, I've repeatedly encountered a particular
> issue, and I'm not sure I'm addressing it well, so I'd like suggestions
> on how to deal with it. The problem is that I need something like a
> partial foreign key -
