One Field Table may it be... Lookup Table.... This is For John W. Vinson but any one can help please...

Hi,

What I understand from other suggestion... is correct or am still having
some gap in concept..?
One field table with either primary autonumber key ... this becomes to
field Table...

if transection Table made with single Filed Table.... and created composite
Key... to me look like I don't have to create in those single field table...
e.g.

Table one
Field Storename Text(40)

Table two
Field Location Text(45)

Table Three (Joining Table)

Storename Text(40) composite key
Location Text(45) composite key

am I write her to create for relation database ..?

Thanks in advance with great admiration... Ahmed Khalak

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:36:28 -0700, "Ahmed Khalak"
wrote:

Hi,

What I understand from other suggestion... is correct or am still having
some gap in concept..?
One field table with either primary autonumber key ... this becomes to
field Table...

if transection Table made with single Filed Table.... and created composite
Key... to me look like I don't have to create in those single field table...
e.g.

Table one
Field Storename Text(40)

Table two
Field Location Text(45)

Table Three (Joining Table)

Storename Text(40) composite key
Location Text(45) composite key

am I write her to create for relation database ..?

Thanks in advance with great admiration... Ahmed Khalak

The only reason to create the single field table is quality control: it will
let you have a table of Locations (with the 45-character text field as its
primary key) to serve as the rowsource of a combo box, provide referential
integrity, etc. If you JUST use Table Three then you must either retype the
storename and location whenever you add data (with the possibility of errors)
or use a much less efficient query such as

SELECT Location FROM [Table Three] GROUP BY Location;

--

John W. Vinson [MVP]