Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
lotek
Starting Member
42 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-09-15 : 16:56:21
|
| Ive managed to eliminate most of the null values in my database design but there are some circumstances i am unsure how to handle. The situation is when i have a table where one of the fields is an optional lookup column. The column is a foreign key and refrences another table. I could get rid of the null value by adding another intermediary table, but when you have 100's of these optional FK lookup columns, then it seems like adding so many 2 column intermediary tables would be ridiculous. What do you think? |
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2005-09-17 : 18:45:20
|
| Why get rid of nulls? They have a meaning - as in this case.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
 |
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2005-09-18 : 14:02:28
|
Normally, you only want to add the intermediary tables if:1. There is a many/many relationship possible.2. There is a date sensitive component, or other entities that will connect to the combination of entity/lookup and expand on that relationship. If you have neither of these, then having the "matrix" tables is going a little too far IMO. NULL is included for a reason. You shouldn't abuse it, and you should never use it in accounting if possible. blah, blah, blah  MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullable Foreign Key Values Ok?