Re: Access as a RDBMS--why the multiple relationships?

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:45:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4762f956$0$85792$>

raylopez99 schreef:

> I notice in Microsoft Access the relationship chart can, unlike most
> textbooks, have TWO, not just one, relationship arrows between
> tables. But I think (and I just want confirmation of this) that one
> of these two relationship arrows is bogus, and more like a query than
> a true relationship.

I think you have either misread/misinterpreted the textbook or have the wrong text book. I don't remember Access that well - does it really say "relationships"? Anyway the arrows depict foreign keys. There is nothing wrong with having more than one arrow between tables.

> Here goes:

[snipped stuff I could not parse]

> ... entity TABLE A has Primary Key PKA that migrates to entity TABLE B as
> a (manditory, and non-exclusive, but doesn't matter) Foreign Key FKB.


> ...I just want confirmation that the SECOND relationship above is simply
> a bogus construct of Access, akin to a query constraint of some sort,
> and not really a 'relationship' as defined by RDBMS theory.

You really should start reading.

You are making another serious beginners mistake: mixing terms from different realms so you end up with an incoherent mess before you get to your real question.

What you see depends on where you stand.
Received on Fri Dec 14 2007 - 22:45:42 CET

Original text of this message