With the second method, you’d be missing out on a lot of useful capabilities of a Ref column. Like dereferencing, or being able to view the referenced record’s label instead of its key.
What is the point of doing the second method, what would you achieve? “use more than one table connected to Table a”? Not really sure what you’re describing there, but you can already connect a table to multiple other tables.
In my work (factory) we have some employees who make cleaning process :
Offices, Bathrooms , Production area, etc.
Every time that they clean some area they fill a form with a checklist . For example for Offices: Windows (yes/no), Tables (yes/no) and the Floor(yes/no) Every area has his own checklist.
That becomes that I need a data Table for the “Bathroom”, other for the “Production area”, etc. We have more than 20 areas.
All the registers are supervised and every time that has detected a bad execution we have one or more “DEFECTS”.
This “defects” are categorized and global for all the areas.
Example:
“Late hour in the execution”
“The employee lied in the execution”
“The employee did not comply with the hygiene procedure”
“bla bla..”
If we only had one possible defect for every area I would put some extra column in every “Area Table” filled by the supervisor . In real life we could have more than one.
That becomes that I need a “DEFECT TABLE” and then I need to put here an ID for the execution of the cleaning area , “The Defect kind”( example “the employee lied..”) and a text description.
If I use a REF column in the “DEFECT TABLE” I can only put one table on the Source Table.
THAT is my problem. I think I understand what you said “..able to view the referenced record’s label instead of its key”. Really in my solution I need to use in the “DEFECT TABLE” a column with a Lookup formula to know what area is.
My modest solution work for me now, but a would like to know a better solution.