Recent content by EH_SG

Totally. I guess I've just been putting off what I knew needed to be changed really, due to the time of the work involved I felt I needed more justification and validation. I enjoy developing and improving my database so I do actually want to spend time on it, has to be because it makes business...

Thank you all for your help so far - I hadn't had chance to come back to look at all your input until now. Kens BOM db does do what I'm wondering if I should change my db to - so it is certainly possible. My key question however is whether it is worth the work of re-jigging everything? Will it...

Numerous Lookup field in numerous tables - why is this bad and what is the alternative? Some of your Joins between tables do not have Referential Integrity enforced - I have no idea what this means in practical terms

I have tried to improve the relationships view to make it clearer how everything works together currently. I do have junction tables (part to section and section to product) @Ken Sheridan it sounds as though you are saying that if I had all the parts, sub-assemblies and products in one table...

These tables log each stock transaction for inventory, sections and products respectively

Inventory, Sections and Products - each then has its own transactions table, which should maybe be 1 table also if I merge the initial three

This is a back up of the tables (only) I created before I moved them to sharepoint so its not exactly like this now but the structure is the same. And this doesn't have all our customer contacts etc in. (Repost without some numbers in!)

I created a database for my employer 2 years ago, initially to track component stock though it has broadened to encompass more. It seemed best at the time to have a separate table for (1)the components (parts) that make up (2)sub-assemblies (sections) that make up (3)products. I now wish I had...