Sorry, my mistake, I meant, the tables has an ID generated, PersonID to reference a person table and a telephone field. When I created the FK to map to person table, I was expecting the database to check for missing personID. After all, if the FK works when you insert a record with a personID that does not exist, why doesn't it work when you do not supply a personID. I understand your concept, but shoudn't this be the database's responsibility to reject a null personID if a FK is in place? after all, a null or empty personID does not map to anything on the person table. Also when I run your query example I still get 0 rows affected. I could use the keys to remove them, but it is strange that I can not delete those records that were created without a personID. Are they empy or null? in other languages sometimes there is a difference.
This is the query I used. delete from pkgAddressBook.Tlphones where personID is null Thanks. "kevin furze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > you do not need the Field1 - "ID" > Cache automatically creates ID for any permanent storage. > so in your case, just create > Field1 = PersonID Foreign Key References PhoneBook.Person > > when trying to delete entries that do not have a phone number try: > delete from pkgAddressBook.Tlphones where personID is null > > the concept is fine in theory, but as you can imagine, having a single > field in the DB that is not mandatory is a bit strange. > > kev > >
