D2009 - DBISAM latest

I have 2 tables linked to a master table in a one to one relationship. I
appreciate that this isn't common or necessarily desired but I am trying to
keep record size and table management down to something reasonable. The
master table is just 152 bytes in size and basically consists of a key,
date, time and a few other values. The linked slave tables are 3512 and 1400
bytes respectively. I enforce RI by assigning the key to the slave record.
Since I will never have more than 1 slave record per master record, what is
the best way to trap for a user trying to create a second slave record?
Sorry, these questions may be obvious  to some of you but they escape my
addled brain today. Many thanks for any and all help, Sean

"Sean McDermott" <Sean@HorizonCanada.com> wrote in message
news:10DD6DF9-AAC8-471F-BF12-179FD2504395@news.elevatesoft.com...
> D2009 - DBISAM latest
>
> I have 2 tables linked to a master table in a one to one relationship. I
> appreciate that this isn't common or necessarily desired but I am trying
> to keep record size and table management down to something reasonable. The
> master table is just 152 bytes in size and basically consists of a key,
> date, time and a few other values. The linked slave tables are 3512 and
> 1400 bytes respectively. I enforce RI by assigning the key to the slave
> record. Since I will never have more than 1 slave record per master
> record, what is the best way to trap for a user trying to create a second
> slave record?

Having a user interface design that does not allow the option to add a
detail unless the master has already been added?

Robert

Unless i'm missing something obvious here just setting a master record key
as primary unique index in slave table will prevent multiple entries on
table level. You'd have to trap the exception still to inform of of this.

Raul

"Sean McDermott" <Sean@HorizonCanada.com> wrote in message
news:10DD6DF9-AAC8-471F-BF12-179FD2504395@news.elevatesoft.com...
> D2009 - DBISAM latest
>
> I have 2 tables linked to a master table in a one to one relationship. I
> appreciate that this isn't common or necessarily desired but I am trying
> to keep record size and table management down to something reasonable. The
> master table is just 152 bytes in size and basically consists of a key,
> date, time and a few other values. The linked slave tables are 3512 and
> 1400 bytes respectively. I enforce RI by assigning the key to the slave
> record. Since I will never have more than 1 slave record per master
> record, what is the best way to trap for a user trying to create a second
> slave record? Sorry, these questions may be obvious  to some of you but
> they escape my addled brain today. Many thanks for any and all help, Sean
>

Hi all, yes, this is what I have done. I am trying to make this as brainless
as possible as the app is heading to a group that isn't computer savvy at
all and I need to make it seamless. Cheers, Sean

"Raul" <raul@raul.ca> wrote in message
news:A1863595-D3C8-4464-83AD-00C9927C9504@news.elevatesoft.com...
>
> Unless i'm missing something obvious here just setting a master record key
> as primary unique index in slave table will prevent multiple entries on
> table level. You'd have to trap the exception still to inform of of this.
>
> Raul
>
> "Sean McDermott" <Sean@HorizonCanada.com> wrote in message
> news:10DD6DF9-AAC8-471F-BF12-179FD2504395@news.elevatesoft.com...
>> D2009 - DBISAM latest
>>
>> I have 2 tables linked to a master table in a one to one relationship. I
>> appreciate that this isn't common or necessarily desired but I am trying
>> to keep record size and table management down to something reasonable.
>> The master table is just 152 bytes in size and basically consists of a
>> key, date, time and a few other values. The linked slave tables are 3512
>> and 1400 bytes respectively. I enforce RI by assigning the key to the
>> slave record. Since I will never have more than 1 slave record per master
>> record, what is the best way to trap for a user trying to create a second
>> slave record? Sorry, these questions may be obvious  to some of you but
>> they escape my addled brain today. Many thanks for any and all help, Sean
>>
>
>