Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 855979
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T08:09:58+00:00 2026-05-15T08:09:58+00:00

I have a question about database ‘style’. I need a method of storing user

  • 0

I have a question about database ‘style’.

I need a method of storing user accounts. Some users “own” other user accounts (sub-accounts). However not all user accounts are owned, just some.

Is it best to represent this using a table structure like so…

TABLE accounts (
 ID 
 ownerID -> ID
 name
)

…even though there will be some NULL values in the ownerID column for accounts that do not have an owner.

Or would it be stylistically preferable to have two tables, like so.

TABLE accounts (
 ID 
 name
)

TABLE ownedAccounts (
 accountID -> accounts(ID)
 ownerID -> accounts(ID)
)

Thanks for the advice.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T08:09:59+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 8:09 am

    I would keep the tables separate.

    Self-referencing foreign keys can cause a lot of pain to update/delete.

    With the combined table, a cascading delete on the owner will then delete all the owned accounts. (Which may or may not be desirable.) With the separate table, a cascade delete will only delete the relationship that the accounts were owned, and not the accounts themselves.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.