D'Arcy J.M. Cain skrev:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:00:47 +0800
> Paul Lambert <paul.lambert@autoledgers.com.au> wrote:
>> It's marked not null as a result of being part of the primary key for
>> that table which I can't really get around.
>>
>> I can get away with not having the foreign key though, so I'll have to
>> go down that path.
>
> It can't be the primary key and have NULLs. It sounds to me like you
> have a design problem somewhere.
Well, I have a couple of times had the "need" to have a primary
key/uniqueness constraint with one column nullable (indicating "Not
Applicable"). The "problem" is that we have only one NULL, which for
comparison purposes is interpreted as "Not Known".
Nis
