e15a6341   
   From: emurphy42@socal.rr.com   
      
   --CELKO-- wrote:   
      
   >>> But he isn't, necessarily,  deleting table b. He's using table B as a list   
   of ids which the items in table A need deleting.  So cascade deletes are   
   invalid as a solution here. <<   
   >   
   > Think about a proper schema design.  The goal of Normalization and   
   > Referential Integrity is to prevent redundancy.I coined the phrase   
   > "one fact, one way, one place, one time" to describe a good schema   
   > design.   
   >   
   > If you are right, Table B should have been a "working table' and not   
   > retained after Table A is cleaned out.  The "B list" might go to   
   > archives, but that is another issue.  If Table B were retained, then   
   > we have attribute splitting.  There should have been a status of some   
   > kind in Table A.   
   >   
   > The really bad news is that this "build a list and merge it" style of   
   > SQL programming mimics a magnetic tape file system.  That is why there   
   > are physically separated tables for the same set of entities instead   
   > of one, as per RDBMS.   
      
   Jens, can you describe the actual concepts behind "a" and "b" in   
   your situation?  I suspect that Joe is right, but that it would   
   be easier to understand when applied to a specific example.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)