The database i'm trying to create have four tables. tblPatient information, tblparasitology tests, tblserology tests and tblbiochemical tests. All the later three tables are related to patient information table. What i want to ask is that, is there a problem if i use the primary key in the table patient information to foreign keys of all the other tables? in other words how many tables (foreign keys) can be related to a primary key on one table?
There is really no practical or particular limit here.
however one tip, one concept to keep in mind?
While you can setup all these related tables, to create forms that edit the data?
Each form is STILL based on the one base table.
So you can create a form based on tblPatients.
So allow view and editing and adding of say tblserology results?
That will become a sub form. NOTE VERY careful here that the form tblPaitent is based ONLY on that one table. And the child table (and child form (ie: sub form) tblserology will ONLY be based on tblserology table. So the forms to hook up, wire up the relatonships between the tables are STILL only based on the single table.
To allow editing of related data, you thus use sub forms. If you do this correctly, then no code is required to edit and display and maintain say display of test results for a given patient.
So each and all tables will have a primary key (auto number id).
To realate a child table back up to a parent table, you create a plane jane long number column. This value will be automatic setup for you if you follow the above advice for a main form, and then a sub-form for the child table data.
Related
Issue:
I am developing a simple issue tracking database and have hit a stumbling block that I’m not sure how to resolve. Have tried several approaches using queries, sql statement etc but still not working. I may have to rethink how I am doing this but hoping someone may be able to address the issue as it stands, though if a more elegant way of doing it happy to implement that.
Scenario:
A table called tblUsers has a field called Access that is a lookup to a table called tblCategory and allows for multiple values to be stored (one to many). In essence this is saying which category(s) of “issue” the user is allowed to
A simple msgbox test in code shows that this is correctly storing the values selected in the following format "1, 2, 3, 4"
In turn, each issue can only have a single category (one to one) which is stored in a field called Category in table tblGMPIssues and is also populated from a lookup to the tblCategory table.
So far so good ….
I then have a query called qryUserIssues that should show all issues from the table tblGMPIssues that are a) “Open” (status = 1) and that b) match any of the categories that the user is permitted to view.
I can get this to work with a single value i.e. as it stands query prompts for input and if you enter a single valid integer it returns expected results
But I can’t work out the syntax to get the criteria to accommodate multiple values. For example, in above scenario our user should be allowed to see 4 different category or calls “1, 2, 3, 4”
Tried using INNER joins, tried assigning to variables and using a LIKE criteria but can’t seem to get the syntax right.
If anyone could let me know if this can be done and if so how as it’s driving me nuts.
All help and suggestions gratefully received.
Updated relationship diagram --> 1
For precisely the reason that you've asked this question I would recommend never using the multi-select lookup option for columns in MS Access tables. Instead create an intersection table which tells you the combinations of values from the two main tables that are allowed. So instead of having the multi-select Access column in tblUsers, you should have a separate table called tblUserAccess with two columns (UserID and CategoryID). The two columns together will form a composite Primary Key for this table, and individually they will be Foreign Keys to tblUsers and tblCategory respectively. (You should do the same kind of thing with tblType - remove the Categories column and set up a separate table called tblTypeCategories).
Coming to your query, are you expecting this to show you all the relevant Issues for a particular user? At the moment, it is not doing this. The reason it is prompting you for input is because it doesn't understand ([tblUsers].[Access]) - tblUsers is not referenced in your query, and the query has no way of knowing which particular user you're interested in.
With your new table in place (and populated with the relevant data) you should add tblUserAccess to the query, joining tblGMPIssues.Category to tblUserAccess.CategoryID. Take the ([tblUsers].[Access]) condition off the Category column. Add the UserID column to the grid and set the criteria to [Input UserID]. Now when you run the query it will ask you for a user ID, and it should hopefully show you all the Issues that the given user can access.
Good luck!
First, I suggest you normalize your data a bit:
You have a number of tables that are reference data (e.g. tables tblStatus, tblSeverity, tblLocation). You have a s a primary key a (system generated) ID. That is wrong! The primary key of these should be their data, i.e. status, severity, location.
I can't see what the relationships are between the data. It should be one-to-many, mandatory (i.e. one Status can occur in many tblGMPIssues and a status is mandatory).
Your table tblType is unclear to me but it contains the categories. I am not familiar with the '-' before Categories followed by a Categories.Value but I assume an occurrence of tblType can contain exactly one Categories.Value. If not, then you must decompose this table.
If a User has access to a number of Categories, then there must be a many-to-many relationship betwen Users and Categories. From this relationship you do your select query, but I don't see this relationship.
Use following query to get any of the Category IDs 1, 2, 3 or 4
Select * from tblGMPIssues where tblGMPIssues.Category in (Select UserAccess from tblUserAccess)
I still have many problems with your relational design, or actually the lack of a proper relational design. As an example, below is a diagram from my Access 2007 showing a part of your database with a proper design. Access automatically shows that "one" and "many" symbols (which I don't see in your diagrams). I also show the relationship dialog with the proper fields checked. Note that none of the keys of any table, except tblIssue, has a system generated primary key. They are all plain text whch allows better understanding when inspecting the data and, as said, the database automaticlly updates child tables when the primary key value of a parent table changes.
Note table tblCategoryType: it implements a many-to-many relation between categories and types, meaning a category can be of zero or more types and a type can be in zero or more categories. In addition to "update cascades", this table has the "delete cascades" checkbox checked so if a category is deleted, all its relations with types are deleted (not the types).
I have 4 tables, "Player", "Crafting", "Battling", "Gathering".
I made a relationship rule for Crafting, Battling and Gathering to share information to the Player table.
The problem is that when I go to the player table it makes me choose which other table's information to display instead of showing all 3.
How can I make a relationship so that I can view all three other tables from the player table?
It's impossible and you don't need this. You already have all relationships you need. Just create a form based on Player table with 3 subforms and link them on form, no additional code required in simple case.
Also I would recommend do not use username as primary key, use Autonumber data type instead.
So I am building out a set of tables in an existing database at the moment, and have run into a weird problem.
First things first, the tables in question are called Organizations, Applications, and PostOrganizationsApplicants.
Organizations is a pre-existing table that is already populated with lots of data in regards to an organization's information which has been filled out in another form on another portal. EDIT: I cannot edit this table.
Applications is a table that records all information that a user inputs in the application form of the website. It is a new table.
PostOrganizationsApplicants is basically a copy of Organizations. This is also a new table.
The process goes:
1. Go to website and choose between two different web forms, Form A pertains to companies who are in the Organizations table, and Form B pertains to companies who are not in that table.
2a. If Form A is chosen, a lot of the fields in the application will be auto-populated because of their previous submission.
2b. If Form B is chosen, the company has to start from scratch and fill out the entire application from scratch.
3. Any Form B applicants must go into the PostOrganizationsApplicants table.
Now I am extremely new to SQL and Database Management so I may sound pretty stupid, but when I am linking the Organizations and PostOrganizationsApplicants tables to the Applications table, FK's for the OrganizationsID column and PostOrganizationsApplicantsID columns will have lots of empty spaces.
Is this good practice? Is there a better way to structure my tables? I've been racking my brain over this and just can't figure out a better way.
No, it's not necessarily bad practice to allow NULL values for foreign key columns.
If an instance of an entity doesn't have a relationship to an instance of another entity, then storing a NULL in the foreign key column is the normative practice.
From your description of the use case, a "Form A" Applications won't be associated with a row in Organizations or a row in PostOrganizationsApplicants.
Getting the cardinality right is what is important. How manyOrganizations can a given Applications be related to? Zero? One? More than One? And vice versa.
If the relationship is many-to-many, then the usual pattern is to introduce a third relationship table.
Less frequently, we will also implement a relationship table for very sparse relationships, when a relationship to another entity is an exception, rather than the rule.
I'm assuming that the OrganizationsID column you are referring to is in the PostOrganizationsApplicants table (which would mean that a PostOrganizationsApplicants can be associated with (at most) one Organizations.
I'm also assuming that PostOrganizationsApplicantsID column is in the Applications table, which means an instance of Applications can be associated with at most one PostOrganizationsApplicants.
Bottomline, have a "zero-or-one to many" relationship is valid, as long as that supports a suitable representation of the business model.
Why not just add a column to the Organizations table that indicates that the Organization is a "Post" type of organization and set it for the Form B type of applicants? - then, all your orgs are in one table - with a single property to indicate where they came from.
If you can add a new record to Organizations (I hope you can) just
create FK from Organizations as PK of PostOrganizationsApplicants. So
if Organizations has corresponding record in PostOrganizationsApplicants - it's "Post"!
Thanks everybody, I think I found the most efficient way to do it inspired by all of your answers.
My solution below, in case anyone else has a similar problem...
Firstly I will make the PK of PostOrganizationsApplicants the FK of Organizations by making a "link" table.
Then I am going to add a column in PostOrganizationsApplicants which will take in a true/false value on whether they completed the form from the other portal or not. Then I will ask a question in the form whether they have already done the other version of the form or not. If the boolean value is true, then I will point those rows to the Organizations table to auto-populate the forms.
Thanks again!
So the root of this problem may lie in poor database design, some of the way this is set up is inherited from older versions. I just couldn't figure out a better way to do this.
I have four tables linked by the same field: [OBJECTID]. Each table is linked to an Access Form that controls the data. It is important that these tables be separate as the data is georeferenced and needs to be mapped separately, however they inherit several fields from one another by default.
Most of the time, the tables are in a one-to-one-to-one-to-one relationship, however occasionally, there is only data for the first table, and occasionally, there is only data for the second, third and fourth form.
Right now, the [OBJECTID] field in the first table is set to datatype autonumber, so that all subsequent linked records in the other tables can inherit that number. For the cases where the record in Tbl1 are not entered via Form1, it is easy enough to just assign a number that does not conflict with any current number, but how do I avoid assigning a number that could conflict with some future [OBJECTID] generated by the autonumber field in Tbl1?
Sorry if that is confusing! Thanks in advance for helping me think this through....
If the design is correct, there should be a relationship with referential integrity between tbl1 and table 2/3/4. Since you mention that occasionally, there is only data for the second, third and fourth form that means we have no referential integrity here :-/.
I would identify the fields that are common to all 4 tables, and create a "main" table with those, meaning that the main table MUST be filled. Then you create a 1 to 0,1 relationship to the other 4 tables, with an outer join, their PK beeing then a Long Integer.
For the source of your forms 1 to 4, use an outer join between MainTable and T1/2/3/4. The "subtables" will then inherit the PK of the main table.
Hope I am not too obscure.
I have a table that holds bibliography entries, with a bibID primary key. I also have a table that holds a list of categories that can be assigned to the bibliography entries with a categoryID primary key. A table links these two tables as bibID:categoryID, so that each bibID can be associated with multiple categoryIDs.
Categories associated with bibliography entries can be edited via a form with checkboxes that represent all possible categories.
What is the most efficient way to update this relationship? I could just delete all relationships from the linking table associated with an entry and then reinsert whatever the form says, but this seems inefficient.
Efficiency is a slippery term. It can mean different things to different people.
However in most cases it means "performance", so I will assume that is what you mean for now.
I suspect the reality is that this is the most efficient (performant) way.
Other methods may appear more elegant, as they will preserve existing data, and only add missing data, but they will (potentially) require more database accesses and (definitely) more complicated SQL. One database call to delete and one to add should fix you up.
The only exception may be where there are large numbers of entries and the changes are small (or negligible). In this case you may need to reconsider.