Bruno,
> It wouldn't have to be a dummy table. You could have both sets of
> data
> in the same table.
Per my original e-mail, this is not an option.
Basically, the two tables have nothing in commmon *except* that events
can be scheduled against either table. Otherwise, the two tables have
vastly different data, which comes from completely different sources,
and is related to a totally different set of dependant tables.
So, no go.
I run into this sort of thing a lot. Is it just the way I design
databases, or is there a need for a more sophisticated model of
relationality for SQL03?
-Josh