By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,575 Members | 1,968 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,575 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Correct Table Structure - Optional Values

P: n/a
Hello,

I have 3 optional text boxes. I don't know if the best way to set up
the table would be a field for each box, since this would leave gaps in
the table if the user only filled in one box. Is there a good method
to use?? This is kind of like storing check box values, in that there
could be multiple answers.

Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
nib
tr**********@sw.rr.com wrote:
Hello,

I have 3 optional text boxes. I don't know if the best way to set up
the table would be a field for each box, since this would leave gaps in
the table if the user only filled in one box. Is there a good method
to use?? This is kind of like storing check box values, in that there
could be multiple answers.


You don't give us much to go on but based off what you said, it sounds
as if the data that goes in these text boxes should be in their own table.

Zach
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
(tr**********@sw.rr.com) writes:
I have 3 optional text boxes. I don't know if the best way to set up
the table would be a field for each box, since this would leave gaps in
the table if the user only filled in one box. Is there a good method
to use?? This is kind of like storing check box values, in that there
could be multiple answers.


What do you mean with gaps? With this miniscule information, it sounds
to me that the columns mapping to these text boxes should be nullable.
Thus if a user only enters value in one box, you store NULL in the other
columns.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp
Jul 23 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.