Hi list. If you have a table like this: table1 - id - field1 - field2 - field3 table2 - id - table1_id - field1 - field2 - field3 table1 & table2 are setup as 1-to-many. If I want to start providing user-customizable defaults to the database (ie, we don't want apps to update database schema), is it ok database design to add a table2 record, with a NULL table1_id field? In other words, if table1 has no matching table2 record, then the app will use the table2 record with a NULL table1_id field to get defaults. This looks messy however. Is there a better way to do it? A few other ways I can think of: 1) Have an extra table1 record (with string fields containing 'DEFAULT'), against which the extra table2 record is linked. 2) Have a new table, just for defaults, like this: table2_defaults - field1 - field2 - field3 Which is the cleanest way? Is there another method I should use instead? David.
