D
ditnog
I have an Interaction ID that is my primary key with autonumber in Table 1. I
have a Customer ID that is my primary key with autonumber in Table 2. In
Table 1, interactions can include quote, sale, action and follow-up. In Table
2, Customer ID may be a company, and I need a way to uniquely identify
sub-customer/independent client names (for lack of a better word. Essentially
working with a variety of clients within a company).
So, I think I need to uniquely identify unique interactions and unique
sub-customers and am wondering if I should make the InteractionID and sale a
composite key. And the same for Customer ID and sub-customer/client.
Is the composite key a fairly common thing to do? I'm thinking that
assigning a primary key to Customer ID and Interaction ID will provide a
"factless" field with a unique number, and then linking those fields to Sale
and Client to create composite keys will give me the kind of results I need.
Any help is much appreciated.
have a Customer ID that is my primary key with autonumber in Table 2. In
Table 1, interactions can include quote, sale, action and follow-up. In Table
2, Customer ID may be a company, and I need a way to uniquely identify
sub-customer/independent client names (for lack of a better word. Essentially
working with a variety of clients within a company).
So, I think I need to uniquely identify unique interactions and unique
sub-customers and am wondering if I should make the InteractionID and sale a
composite key. And the same for Customer ID and sub-customer/client.
Is the composite key a fairly common thing to do? I'm thinking that
assigning a primary key to Customer ID and Interaction ID will provide a
"factless" field with a unique number, and then linking those fields to Sale
and Client to create composite keys will give me the kind of results I need.
Any help is much appreciated.