On Dec 1, 3:57 am, annet <jmverm...@planet.nl
> The second solution makes displaying addresses and services a lot
> easier, and, I guess, enables me to implement the city and service
> fields as auto-complete fields (a problem I have not solved yet), not
> as drop boxes. However, the downside is that when I update a city or
> service in their respective standardization tables the update is not
The second solution would make it easier to display the created
records, since there is no need for an additional DB lookup (using the
id to get the record content), it makes no difference for the drop
Since you are not keeping the reference to the record (only a part of
the record, one field in this case) you don't get the updated info
without doing a DB search (to obtain the id) and then you would have
to handle the missing record case (not to mention DB integrity). An
onupdate='cascade' would still need the record id.
If you keep the id then you are always referring to the record and any
updates of it.
This sounds more like a DB design issue.