Can you have a one to one relationship?
I have a table with 200 plus fileds.They are product specific values like price, descriptions, keywords, meta info, titles, all with various currencies and langauages. I was hopying to break this down a little to make it easier to use and having a price table, title table, descriptions table and a main product table. this information would have a one to one relationship. I can not see this option avaiable anywhere, is it possible. Also when using a form, if you cick on a filed to a linked table it brings up an entry form with the field in, adding a data input step, as you have to close the tab it creates when you have entered the data. Is there a way you can just enter the info into the form without he additonal field appearing? i.e. I am in a product with a linked table to supplier, I click on the link button and it pops up a supplier input field, I then close the supplier input fields and continue on the data input of the product. Thanks!
6 replies
-
@Matthew
Let's address the first point.. One to One relationship.. While technically, yes.. you can create a relationship between two Ninox tables.. and use a constraint to enforce the one to one cardinality rule (1:1) ... I would not advise that.
In relational theory, a design is considered to be in "Third Normal Form" when a tables attributes (columns) are dependent soley on the rows primary key. Meaning.. there is a 1 to 1 relationship between that attribute and the primary key..
Two the second point.. without recreating it.. I suspect you are seeing that behavior because of relationship.
Hope that helps.
-
@Dean... you definently put more thought into it than I.. :) Sure.. I can see those as outlier conditions... especially with reference to BLOBs, PII obfuscation .. etc.
-
Ok thank you. I decided on one big table in the end....
-
I wrote a quick application for a friends bakery to help him manage his paczki orders for Fat Tuesday. It looks like this.
-
One big table with 200 plus fields could result in a lot of redundant data. You may be better off with something closer to what @Mconneen has done.
Content aside
- 4 yrs agoLast active
- 6Replies
- 1028Views