I feel like this should be an easy question for someone to answer however despite my numerous searches I have not been able to find an answer (probably due to lack of dB knowledge).
The problem: I am building a research dB related to clinical examinations. I have created a main table and a couple of additional tables which have one to many relationships to the main (think, mulitple findings documented in one examination etc. I have successfully been able to create a Main form with two embedded subforms. This functions as expected.
What I would like to do is break the Main table up into a three individual tables where there are logical differences between groups of fields. This will make the dB easier to revise later on and it will make it easier to find fields.
I would like a record to be created in the two related tables every time i create a record in the first table but I cannot work out how to acheive this. When I go into the form I would like checkboxes from all three tables displayed and editable on the same page and kept in sync by the RecordID of the main table.
Any help or direction to an example dB would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
James
Related
We had an MS Access guru at our company who left for another position. Before she left she gave me a quick introduction on how to create queries from a sql server. I am really struggling with this and as I have no one to turn to at our company I was hoping you guys could help.
Hope you can help!
Thanks!
Well, keep in mind that when you build a query, it DOES NOT necessary mean that a enforced relationship exists here. (it might).
Further more, if you imported the tables, then again its doubtful that relations are defined in Access unless you use the relationships window to "enforce" such relationships.
However, when building a query? We will often join on two fields. When you build a query in the query builder, you are free to "make up" any kind of join you want.
Say I was given two different spreadsheets. One had some people, and another had a list of hotels.
Ok, so say we want to generate a list of all people in the same city as the hotels.
You might join between table "People" and say Hotels with city.
however, WHAT happens if there is more then one state with the same City name?
Well, then just join on City AND State!!!
So you get this:
So I not have some related tables here. I just feel like and want to, and need to join the two tables of data.
As such, we never cared or setup or "had" some relationship defined, but all we care about is creating and building a working query.
So, don't confuse the simple act of building some query with that of having setup a corrrect relatonships between tables.
For a working application? Yes, you most certainly will setup relatonships.
So, if you setup relatonships correctly, then you not be able to say add a customer "invoice" reocrd without FIRST having a customer record. You don't have to do this, but it is a very good idea for a working applicaton.
However, when dealing with imported data? You often may not have an pre-defined relationships.
Now, of course in "most" cases, a query that involves multiple tables will in near all cases "follow" what you defined as relationships in the relationships window but it not necessary a requirement at all.
As noted, when building a working application? Then yes, of course you want to setup the relatonships BEFORE you start adding data.
But for general data processing, and creating queries against say different tables of data you are slicing and dicing and working with?
You are free to cook up and draw lines between the tables in the query builder, and as such, often such quires will have zero to do with the relationships you defined, or in fact even when you don't have any relationships defined at all.
That above People and the list of hotels is a great example. I mean, it rather cool that I simple joined on both City and State, and did not have to write one line of data processing code for my desired results
(a list of people in cities that live in the same city as my hotel list).
So don't confuse what we call "referential integrity" and defined relationships. We define these relationships so it becomes impossible for you the developer to add a customer invoice without first having added the customer. And it also means that you, your code, or even a editing the tables directly will not allow this to occur.
However, when dealing with just reporting, or importing data to work on? Well, then often we will not have any relationships defined, but that sure does not stop us from firing up the query builder and drawing join lines between tables.
Between two given Tables you can have one relationship involving two (of more) fields or two (or more) relationships each involving one field. Both cases are possible and have different implications.
The first case, as the first commenter pointed out, is typically used when you have a compound key in the master Table of the relationship.
The second case is typically used when you have two candidate keys in the master table, each of which is used as a master field in each of the two independent relationships.
In Ms-access the case of two independent relationships may be identified because it implies two table-boxes for the same table in the relationships pane.
I am struggling with an issue in designing my Access database.
I am a caregiver, and part of my job is taking clients out into the community. I am attempting to build a catalog of outings to help the employees at our company come up with and store ideas for these. I want to store information for each of up to 5 types of events that clients can do at a location. That information includes the event type, when it runs and doesn't, and how much it'll cost, all of which would be user-selectable. (Separately in the same table, I want to include contact information and information that helps the user search for event locations, such as the ZIP code.) I have attempted to normalize the database by spreading event information across fields in the main table, linked to lookup tables. I am aware that Access has a limit of 32 relationships per table.
To help staff find event types, I am trying to set up a method for categorizing them. That requires setting up nested lookup tables, as shown in the first picture.
If I understand correctly, the additional "copies" of those lookup tables are aliases. When I save the setup for the relationships between those aliased lookup tables, close the Relationships window, and open it again, I find Access has changed them, as shown in the second picture. This happens whether I delete the lookup table information for each field in Datasheet View. I don't understand why it does this or how to fix it.
To answer your question:
In the object browser I see that you have only one table: t_OutingType. Therefore, the "tables" t_OutingType_2, t_OutingType_3 are just aliases; "pointers" to the same table (like a shortcut to a document). When you save the relationships and close the window, the relationship information is written to the metadata of the database. When you re-open the Relationships window Access re-builds the relationship diagram from the metadata, and it does not include the redundant aliases.
Additional advice:
Whenever you find yourself duplicating columns in a table, e.g., Event_1, Event_2, ... a little voice in your head should start shouting "Are you sure that's a good idea?" Imagine if you want to search the database for events that fall on a certain date. With the table layout described above you would need to ...
SELECT ... WHERE EventDate_1 = [theDate] OR EventDate_2 = [theDate] OR EventDate_3 = [theDate] ...
It's almost always better to split the Event information into a separate child table and maintain an association table between the child table and its parent.
I'm working on a project to make a digital form of this paper
this paper (can't post image)
and the data will displayed on a Web in a simple table view. There will be NO altering, deleting, updating. It's just displaying (via SELECT * of course) the data inputted.
The data will be inserted via android app and stored in a single table which has 30 columns in mysql.
and the question is, is it a good idea if i use a single table? because i think there will be no complex operation in the sql.
and the other question is, am i violating some rules for this method?
I need your opinion. thanks.
It's totally ok to use only one table, if that suits your needs. What you can do to make the database a little bit 'smarter' is add new tables for attributes in your paper that will be repeated. So, for example, the Soil Type could be another table where there are two columns, ID and Description, and you will use it as a foreign key in each record in the main table. You need this if you want your database to be in 3NF.
To sum up, yes you can have one table if that's all you need. However, adding more tables might help save some space and make your database more flexible. It's up to you to decide! :)
I am making a database that is for employee scheduling. I am, for the first time ever, making a relational mySQL database so that I can efficiently manage all of the data. I have been using the mySQL Workbench program to help me visualize how this is going to go. Here is what I have so far:
What I have pictured in my head is that, based on the drawing, I would set the schedule in the schedule table which uses references from the other tables as shown. Then when I need to display this schedule, I would pull everything from the schedule table. Whenever I've worked with a database in the past, it hasn't been of the normalized type, so I would just enter the data into one table and then pull the data out from that one table. Now that I'm tackling a much larger project I am sure that having all of the tables split (normalized) like this is the way to go, but I'm having trouble seeing how everything comes together in the end. I have a feeling it doesn't work the way I have it pictured, #grossvogel pointed out what I believe to be something critical to making this all work and that is to use the join function to pull the data.
The reason I started with a relational database was so that if I made a change to (for example) the shift table and instead of record 1 being "AM" I wanted it to be "Morning", it would then automatically change the relevant sections through the cascade option.
The reason I'm posting this here is because I am hoping someone can help fill in the blanks and to point me in the right direction so I don't spend a lot of hours only to find out I made a wrong turn at the beginning.
Maybe the piece you're missing is the idea of using a query with joins to pull in data from multiple tables. For instance (just incorporating a couple of your tables):
SELECT Dept_Name, Emp_Name, Stat_Name ...
FROM schedule
INNER JOIN departments on schedule.Dept_ID = departments.Dept_ID
INNER JOIN employees on schedule.Emp_ID = employees.Emp_ID
INNER JOIN status on schedule.Stat_ID = status.Stat_ID
...
where ....
Note also that a schedule table that contains all of the information needed to be displayed on the final page is not in the spirit of relational data modeling. You want each table to model some entity in your application, so it might be more appropriate to rename schedule to something like shifts if each row represents a shift. (I usually use singular names for tables, but there are multiple perspectives there.)
This is, frankly, a very difficult question to answer because you could get a million different answers, each with their own merits. I'd suggest you take a look at these (there are probably better links out there too, these just seemed like good points to note) :
http://www.devshed.com/c/a/MySQL/Designing-a-MySQL-Database-Tips-and-Techniques/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyce%E2%80%93Codd_normal_form
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?66342-SQL-and-RDBMS-Database-Design-DO-s-and-DON-Ts
I'd also suggest you try explaining what it is you want to achieve in more detail rather than just post the table structure and let us try to figure out what you meant by what you've done.
Often by trying to explain something verbally you may come to the realisations you need without anyone else's input at all!
One thing I will mention is that you don't have to denormalise a table to report certain values together, you should be considering views for that kind of thing...
No one has taught me how to use these, and I can't find much on how I should be using them properly.
At the moment I say have a data context for my users, user details, user profiles etc. I then have a separate one for my help centre, holding tickets, ticket replies and ticket attachments etc.
Is this correct? Should I be splitting them like this? I cant create an association between two data contexts apparently in the designer. Should all tables be in just one data context? Any benefit to splitting them up? The tables in them are not fully independent of each other.
Have a look here at another Stackoverflow question: Linq-to-SQL: how many datacontexts?
Summary: just use one datacontext for you entire DB