Search results

Autonum PK problem? Ok I'm changing the primary key for a start Quote Now base your instrumentation tables on that starting point. You might have one table for each TYPE of instrument. This relationship would then be SPARSE in the sense that over the sum of all instrument sub-tables, you would...

Hi Bob, We meet again! So does this mean that if data is entered through queries then your out of options?

Hello All, Help! Does anybody know if it's possibe to run an update query based on a trigger. For example every time somebody opens a certain table the update query will run? I'm sure it must be easy.

Ok Doc Man, Thanks again. Yes you are correct about discriminating between tagnums. The last two characters are numeric. So if the same type of instrument is in the same place then they can still be unique. So yes I understand that I can make the autonumber the primary key and breaking up the...

Ok, So, if your autonum is the primary key can you tell me what this means regarding a normalized database? I presume the autonum is only in one table, and all relationships are via other fields. Am I trying to plan out in my head how I could fit my database into the normalization model. I have...

neileg, an you tell me what you mean about the primary key being a descriptive field and why it's a bad idea. By descriptive I mean it's a string made up of usually six pairs os characters. EG first pair = building num, 2nd pair = room num, 3rd pair = Instrument type....etc. What makes a good...

Ok so it's a very annoying but secure job or a total overhaul. I guess As you say, I should show my boss and leave him make the decision. Can I ask one more question. When I told my boss initially that we should follow the normalization rules he asked me what that was. I told him in a hand...

Yeah I guess the append way is another method. Well done. Hope it works out. I wasn't aware that using date was a bad idea though. Thanks for the tip boblarson

Seems to work Yes the query mehod seems to work ok.

Maybe you could create a query for every date, and in each case alias the name of the date field to be "DATE", basicall breaking the table into its seperate columns via queries. I think you can then use a union query to merge the entries into one column. Obvoiusly a bit impractical if you have a...

And sorry, but I hate to disagree. I've just connected my main tabe to two secondary tables via a relationship (one to one in each case) I have enforced RI, and cascade updates but not deletions. The join type in both cases was "All records from main table and...etc". Now I can delete a record...

Yes thats what I'm afraid of, I'm not sure I'll be allowed to change the structure so drastically. I'll try to read and understand though. Thanks a lot.

Two way referential integrity? And sorry, but what do you mean by two way referential integrity? Can it be any other way? I mean I set up a relationship and i tick the box is there another way? Or do you mean something completely different? And also, If I do not tick the box for cascading...

Tables And about the tables. I guess my statement is due to working with a badly managed database prior to this. And the more I learn the more I realise that it was in fact not managed at all. All users can access all tables at present and do what they want. This meant that the guy who was say...

Whooah! Ok Chief, I'm going to need a bit of time to digest this. As you may have gathered I'm pretty new to all this and am definetly not qualified to perform the task, so i'm struggling a bit. I'm sure I'll get there. Thanks again lads.

Still in trouble? Well what I mean by that is that people are used to running custom queries from these secondary tables. Prior to now, people have beeen copying and pasting records into these secondary tables, and updating them that way. But yes, I suppose now that I want them to only see the...

OK, something is beginning to gel here in my mind. If the tables strongly resemble each other (which is implied by "some of those fields will not be unique to a given secondary table"), you have a problem of major design implications. You are giving each department a separate table and you have...

Relationships Ok Dude, Here it is. It aint pretty but it seems to work ok. See what you think.

Normalized? Ok, But I'm not sure how I make my tables long and skinny! My main table will be long and skinny because it has about 4000 records and 20 fields. Howevwer, some of the secondary tables will only have a dozen or so records, but up to 30 or 40 fields. How do you make such a table long...

Normalized??? Hi again, I've been reading up on this normalization business. It seems a bit tricky, but It seems to me that maybe I am OK. It talks a lot about attributes being dependant on others. My database has one Primary/Candidate key. This is tagnum. All data is dependant on that field...