>What is the proper way to set up the relationship between a ‘parent’ table (one record per service location) and the ‘child’ table (one, two, or three addresses per service location)?
>
>Here’s two ways I’ve come up with:
>
>Service table 1:
>CustCode C(6)
>CustName C(30)
>ServAddr Integer
>BillAddr Integer
>OthrAddr Integer
>LastServ Date
>Etc…
>
>Address table 1:
>AddrCode Integer
>AttnLine C(30)
>AddLine1 C(30)
>AddLine2 C(30)
>Etc…
>
>And plan ‘B’
>
>Service table 2:
>CustCode C(6)
>CustName C(30)
>LastServ Date
>Etc…
>
>Address table 2:
>CustCode C(6)
>ServAddr Logical
>BillAddr Logical
>OthrAddr Logical
>AttnLine C(30)
>AddLine1 C(30)
>AddLine2 C(30)
>Etc…
>
>As I perceive it, both are normalized. Is one design better than the other?
>
>TIA,

I don't quite understand what is the basic difference between the two approaches, or what is the underlying philosophy of each approach.

For now, let me remind you that you can put the address in a single memo field. Two or more "adress lines" in separate fields seem, to me, more difficult to manage.

HTH, Hilmar.