Upon further pondering I notice that 'constraint' more or less literally
means a limitation, whereas non-enforcing feels like optional. They are
contradictory.
No: the point is that there is no such thing as an unenforced relationship.
A relationship is a constraint: its one and only purpose is to control what
can be entered into a field, and to prevent illegal deletions or amendments
in the target table.
Anything else (that you can draw in the Access Relationships window) is
just a hint to the query designer, and has no place in the database schema.
It is a severe nuisance of Access's, that it regularly confuses Database
issues with User Interface ones. Another example is the mixing up of Unique
Indexes (a database decision) with non-unique ones (user interface). See
the table design window where there is a complete dog's breakfast of
DataType and Size, DefaultValue, Required, ValidationRule (all data) with
InputMask, Description, Format, ValidationRuleText etc (all UI). Of course
the crowning glories are Autofill and the poxy LookUp Field. And so on.
These are the kind of things that preserve Access's reputation as a toy
database, which is unfair because underneath all the froth is a very solid,
very flexible db engine. But the poorly thought out user issues are as
annoying to the literati as they are confusing to the beginner. The only
people they are good for is the marketing department.
There, got that off my chest (again...)
All the best
Tim F