I have an MS Access table with employee data (including user IDs) that is appended once a month. Every month I add the data of the respective month that contains almost everyone from previous month but also net new records
Question:
How do I create a "recurring" GUID for each employee? In other words - if an employee is part of multiple month's data this employee should always have the same GUID while net-new employees should have a net-new GUID
This is exactly how it works with the existing user id - just want to replace that by GUID for privacy reason.
Thanks for your help in advance
Markus
Create a table with two fields:
UserGuid: AutoNumber. Field Size: Replication ID
UserID: Field type (and size): As your current User ID.
Now, whenever a User Id is entered in the table, a Guid is created.
Then, when needed, look up the Guid using the User ID
Related
I want to revisit a project I made to store user data into a database and improve on the way it is stored. I currently went the hard way about it and stored user data in JSON format within a MySQL database field making it difficult to complete CRUD actions. The reason I did this was to keep all the user's data within the user's field. And was reasonably new to this.
I didn't want to store the data mixed with other user's data and as I thought there may be issues with increased users. for example,
If I had 1000 users with 500 rows of data for each, that's 500 000 rows to sort through when reading the data and displaying it on a web page. And is there a risk of mixing the data up or performance issues?
I basically just want a user database that stores the user's id, name, and credentials. Then another database that will store data from a user's activity(run). So at least 5 fields for each event: Time, location, date, duration, etc. And this will be saved for different events(runs) which could end up in the 100's over a period of time.
My question is, Should I design the table as above. Or would it be better to have a table for each user? Or are there other options that I have not explored?
Given the information shared, I believe below mentioned design may be suitable.
Create a Table called User_Details with columns as id (auto increment),user id, name and credentials.
Now create a User_Activity Table with these columns id, user_id, event name, data(json field).
Explanation:
The User Activity table will store the event data for you related to each user through user_id field to user_details table. The data which is a json field will help you to store all the fields for the event. As you are using json field in DB it will allow you to dump any number of fields for the event which may/may not be structured. You can then map this in your middle layer as required.
Also, in case you have finite number of events then you can also create a table called user_event_types and have column id, event name and then in user_activity table you can refer the id instead of event name.
I have been working on a database design and I'm stuck hitting a wall. I'm ending up with what I'm reading is not a normalized database structure but I'm having issues trying to find a "more correct" design and if this design is acceptable how do I execute it in Access?
TLDR: If a table with a single column set as an auto number is an acceptable design, how do you go about inserting a record in it using Access?
The segment of the database of concern is creating a structure for storing companies. Requirements for this is that any changes need to be approved by another user and all historical changes need to be captured so that it can be easily reverted also a company can have multiple aliases but only one legal name.
There is three tables in my solution but one of them is a single column table. From what I've read 95% of people on stack overflow all think its a very bad idea but I've found one post were people are that there are cases for it. I think this is not normal also because I can't find a way to just create a new record in a table with only an auto number column (In Access I have not tried others yet).
Table Structure
Company Names : ID, Company ID, Is Legal Name, Created By, Created On, Approved On, Approved By, Event ID, Is Active
(A company could have a few different names known to the public: TD vs Toronto Dominion. Each name is inserted here with a reference to the company it belongs to)
Companies : ID (Auto Number)
(A company exists and this is its ID)
Companies History : ID, Company ID, Market ID, Holding Company ID, Created By, Created On, Approved On, Approved By, Event ID, Is Active
(These are the historical changes that have been made to the company and who did them and who approved them)
Column Notes:
Event ID : is a FK reference to a table holding each record of actions that have either created, updated or deleted records. (User Research using method [y], Typo Fix, ...)
Is Active : Since deleting records is not possible (historical records need to be kept) this column is used to track if this record is to be included in queries.
Options I see and their issues:
I could get rid of the companies table and make Companies History : ID be the new company id but I find that in that case each time I want to update a company I would need to update each FK reference to the previous company id (I don't think this would be a very normalized approach)
Another Option I see is that I get rid of Companies table and use Company Names : ID as the company id and I would add a column to Company Names called Alias of Company ID. I find that solution adds a log of complexity to my stored data where an alias has company information that differs from the entry that was aliased.
Another Option is that I could add the columns: Created By, Created On, Approved On, Approved By, Event ID and Is Active but this would be duplicating information found in the first record for this company in the Companies History table and this isn't adding any real description to this record.
Anther Option is that I make the Companies table a mirror of Companies History and that when I update or insert a record in Companies I would also insert a record Companies History. With this solution I find that again I duplicate information, that newest record in "Companies History" would hold the same information found in last Inserted or Updated record in in Companies
Another option but is to replace the Companies : ID auto number with a short text and I just get the hash of the current timestamp + a random int. I can now insert new records into this table using access but I feel that this is overkill since I just need the exact same functionality as the auto number.
Another option is move only the legal name into Companies table but now when the legal name of a company changes I have no way of tracking this. Also if I want a list of all names I need to use a union on Companies and Company Names. I find that using unions can reduce performances of queries and I use them only when explicitly needed.
If I don't want to duplicate any information and I don't want to update all FK it seems that I need a table with a single column. If this is acceptable how do I go about inserting a record into a table with a single column set to auto number in Access.
If Companies can be derived from CompanyNames (select distinct CompanyId from CompanyNames), there is no point storing again that information. Just replace that table by a view if you want it (but it as little added value).
On the other hand, if CreatedOn refers to the Company creation (not the row creation) then it is obviously a property of the Company, and I would rather work with
Companies --> Aliases.
But of course I don't know the ins and outs of the reality you're dealing with.
I have two tables in my database..one is candidates_details and another one is users..in the users table i have two types of users one is vendor and another one is user..they both have same user_id column...and i have that user_id column in my candidates_details table..
So what i want to do is when vendor post candidate_details by using form ..i want to store that user_id
(where user_type_id=1)
in candidates_details table automatically..
Can anyone help me..Thanks in advance..
Let me help you out by giving a pictorial example. Assume you have two tables users and candidate_details. In users you are keeping record of all the registered users along with their types. In Candidate Details you are keeping their profile data. You create another table where you keep user types Be it vendor, contractor, supplier etc.
Now when you create your form to post data in your admin panel or which ever interface you have. Just create a dropdown for user_types, get the type id and add the user. With the type id in your users table you can easily query which type of user that is.
Now for saving that user's profile information in candidate_details table you only have to provide user_id. So creating one more table will normalize your db schema and saves a lot of hustle in your query building.
I have a table Student with field as followed,
Student table (one record per student)
student_id
Name
Parent_Name
Address_line1, Address_line2, Addess_line
Photo_path
Signature_file_path
Preferred_examcity_choice1,Preferred_examcity_choice1, Preferred_examcity_choice3
Gender
Nationality
.
.
.
I am inserting into this table on Registration form completion through the web interface.
Now there is one more module in a web interface for updating the student data, on every update request I am updating the student table records and inserting the new entry in student_data_change_request. student can change records any number of times.
student_data_change_request
request_id(auto_incr PK)
old_name
new_name
old_photo_path
new_photo_path
old_signature_file_path
new_signature_file_path
Now coming to problem, earlier students were allowed to change very few fields, now client want to allow the candidate to update more number of fields(around 20 fields) and adding old and new columns for the corresponding column isn't elegant and preferred(I guess), I will end up creating 40 columns to keep track of 20 columns. So how should I redesign my table? suggestions are welcomed.
One approach is to have a shadow table named (table)_xx that has the same columns, the time, date, update/insert/delete flag, user or whatever and no referential integrity. Set a trigger to update that table from the source whenever anything happens.
If you've got genuine business requirements that need history then do those properly but this pattern is great as a general audit, debugging and forensic tool.
It's also really easy to automate/script as you just generate it from the DB metadata.
Usually historical table looks like:
request_id
column_name
old_value
new_value
dt
request_id and column_name are primary key. When you update student table you insert new entry in student_data_change_request for each updating column.
Edited:
Another way:
request_id
value_type
name
photo_path
signature_file_path
...
and insert first entry with old values and second entry with new values. Colum value_type is mark old or new.
I would rather have just one table, with an additional column for effective date. Then a view that picks up just the most recent row for each student_id becomes your first "table". If for some reason you must show "current" and "most recently changed" values side-by-side, that is another view.
As usual, it all depends on how you intend to use the data.
My strong preference in these cases is the solution #mathguy suggests - embedding the concept of time in the main table design. This allows you to ask the question "what was this student's address on 1 Jan?", or "who had signature x on 12 Feb?".
If you have to report or execute business logic that reflects the status at any point in time, this design works really well. For instance, if you have to report on how many students lived in a particular address for a given term, you want to know when the records were valid.
But not all applications care about "time" - sometimes, you just want to have an audit table, so you can trace what happened over time in case of anomalies.
In that case, #loztinspace's solution is useful - but in my experience, this rapidly escalates into more work, because those who want to inspect the audit records can or should not get access to a SQL prompt on your production environment.
I've been looking into the best way of storing an undetermined amount of information submitted by a user. A friend of mine suggested using nested tables, however these don't appear to be a thing in MySQL.
The application will allow users to store pieces of text information per day (each day is a blank slate so to speak)
What I have currently is
-Users
--ID
--email
--password
-Things
--UID (made from date and user ID)
--Thing1
--Thing2
This works fine. The UID is the users ID and the date combined (i.e 71420150404) as each day will be different but I'm open to changing this. The application checks to see if there are any entries for that UID and if there isn't, creates a new row.
The problem I have is I'd like the user to be able to select how many pieces of information they would like to add per day. So instead of the static 'Thing1, Thing2' the user could theoretically have this go up to 'Thing100', and I'm fairly sure adding these as columns isn't the best way to go about this.
I looked into if its possible to store an array in a cell and I'd access it like that through PHP but the research I came across all suggests I shouldn't do this. Creating a new table per user also seems very inefficient.
What is the best way to go about this?
I would create 2 tables:
entry table: id (auto increment), user id, timestamp - each time a user wants to store things a record is created and the id is retrieved using last_insert_id()
things table: id (auto increment), entry_id (foreign key to entry table), thing ( to store whatever the user wants to store)
If a user wants to store 10 things, then you create an entry record, then using its id you create 10 records within the things table. This way you are completely flexible on the number of things a user can store.