I tried to design a data structure for easy and fast querying (delete, insert an update speed does not really matter for me).
The problem: transitive relations, one entry could have relations through other entries whose relations I don't want to save separately for every possibility.
Means--> I know that Entry-A is related to Entry-B and also know that Entry-B is related to Entry-C, even though I don't know explicitly that Entry-A is related to Entry-C, I want to query it.
What I think the solution is:
Eliminating the transitive part when inserting, deleting or updating.
Entry:
id
representative_id
I would store them as sets, like group of entries (not mysql set type, the Math set, sorry if my English is wrong). Every set would have a representative entry, all of the set elements would be related to the representative element.
A new insert would insert the Entry and set the representative as itself.
If the newly inserted entry should be connected to another, I simply set the representative id of the newly inserted entry to the referred entry's rep.id.
Attach B to A
It doesn't matter, If I need to connect it to something that is not a representative entry, It would be the same, because every entry in the set would have the same rep.id.
Attach C to B
Detach B-C: The detached item would have become a representative entry, meaning it would relate to itself.
Detach B-C and attach C to X
Deletion:
If I delete a non-representative entry, it is self explanatory. But deleting a rep.entry is harder a bit. I need to chose a new rep.entry for the set and set every set member's rep.id to the new rep.entry's rep.id.
So, delete A in this:
Would result this:
What do you think about this? Is it a correct approach? Am I missing something? What should I improve?
Edit:
Querying:
So, If I want to query every entry that is related to an certain entry, whose id i know:
SELECT *
FROM entries a
LEFT JOIN entries b ON (a.rep_id = b.rep_id)
WHERE a.id = :id
SELECT * FROM AlkReferencia
WHERE rep_id=(SELECT rep_id FROM AlkReferencia
WHERE id=:id);
About the application that requires this:
Basically, I am storing vehicle part numbers (references), one manufacturer can make multiple parts that can replace another and another manufacturer can make parts that are replacing other manufacturer's parts.
Reference: One manufacturer's OEM number to a certain product.
Cross-reference: A manufacturer can make products that objective is to replace another product from another manufacturer.
I must connect these references in a way, when a customer search for a number (doesn't matter what kind of number he has) I can list an exact result and the alternative products.
To use the example above (last picture): B, D and E are different products we may have in store. Each one has a manufacturer and a string name/reference (i called it number before, but it can be almost any character chain). If I search for B's reference number, I should return B as an exact result and D,E as alternatives.
So far so good. BUT I need to upload these reference numbers. I can't just migrate them from an ALL-IN-ONE database. Most of the time, when I upload references I got from a manufacturer (somehow, most of the time from manually, but I can use catalogs too), I only get a list where the manufacturer tells which other reference numbers point to his numbers.
Example.:
Asas filter manufacturer, "AS 1" filter has these cross references (means, replaces these):
GOLDEN SUPER --> 1
ALFA ROMEO --> 101000603000
ALFA ROMEO --> 105000603007
ALFA ROMEO --> 1050006040
RENAULT TRUCKS (RVI) --> 122577600
RENAULT TRUCKS (RVI) --> 1225961
ALFA ROMEO --> 131559401
FRAD --> 19.36.03/10
LANDINI --> 1896000
MASSEY FERGUSON --> 1851815M1
...
It would took ages to write all of the AS 1 references down, but there is many (~1500 ?). And it is ONE filter. There is more than 4000 filter and I need to store there references (and these are only the filters). I think you can see, I can't connect everything, but I must know that Alfa Romeo 101000603000 and 105000603007 are the same, even when I only know (AS 1 --> alfa romeo 101000603000) and (as 1 --> alfa romeo 105000603007).
That is why I want to organize them as sets. Each set member would only connect to one other set member, with a rep_id, that would be the representative member. And when someone would want to (like, admin, when uploading these references) attach a new reference to a set member, I simply INSERT INTO References (rep_id,attached_to_originally_id,refnumber) VALUES([rep_id of the entry what I am trying to attach to],[id of the entry what I am trying to attach to], "16548752324551..");
Another thing: I don't need to worry about insert, delete, update speed that much, because it is an admin task in our system and will be done rarely.
It is not clear what you are trying to do, and it is not clear that you understand how to think & design relationally. But you seem to want rows satisfying "[id] is a member of the set named by member [rep_id]".
Stop thinking in terms of representations and pointers. Just find fill-in-the-(named-)blank statements ("predicates") that say what you know about your application situations and that you can combine to ask about your application situations. Every statement gets a table ("relation"). The columns of the table are the names of the blanks. The rows of the table are the ones that make its statement true. A query has a statement built from its table's statements. The rows of its result are the ones that make its statement true. (When a query has JOIN of table names its statement ANDs the tables' statements. UNION ORs them. EXCEPT puts in AND NOT. WHERE ANDs a condition. Dropping a column by SELECT corresponds to logical EXISTS.)
Maybe your application situations are a bunch of cells with values and pointers. But I suspect that your cells and pointers and connections and attaching and inserting are just your way of explaining & justifying your table design. Your application seems to have something to do with sets or partitions. If you really are trying to represent relations then you should understand that a relational table represents (is) a relation. Regardless, you should determine what your table statements are. If you want design help or criticism tell us more about your application situations, not about representation of them. All relational representation is by tables of rows satisfying statements.
Do you really need to name sets by representative elements? If we don't care what the name is then we typically use a "surrogate" name that is chosen by the DBMS, typically via some integer auto-increment facility. A benefit of using such a membership-independent name for a set is that we don't have to rename, in particular by choosing an element.
Related
I have following requirements for item management.
Item can be moved from location 'A' to 'B'. And later on it can also be moved from 'B' to 'C' location.
History should be maintained for each item to display it location wise items for specific period, can be display item wise history.
Also I need to display items 'in transit' on particular date.
Given below is the database design:
item_master
-----------
- ItemId
- Item name
- etc...
item_location_history
------------------
- ItemId
- LocationId (foreign key of location_master)
- Date
While item is being transported I want to insert data in following way:
1. At the time of transport I want to enter item to be moved from location 'A' to 'In Transit' on particular date. As there is possibilities that item remains in 'in transit' state for several days.
2. At the time of receive at location 'B' I want to insert item to be moved from 'In Transit' to location 'B' on particular date and so on.
This way I will have track of both 'In Transit' state and item location.
What is the best way to achieve this? What changes I need to apply to the above schema? Thanks.
Initial Response
What is the best way to achieve this?
This is a simple and common Data Modelling Problem, and the answer (at least in the Relational Database context) is simple. I would say, every database has at least a few of these. Unfortunately, because the authors who write books about the Relational Model, are in fact completely ignorant of it, they do not write about this sort of simple straight-forward issue, or the simple solution.
What you are looking for is an OR gate. In this instance, because the Item is in a Location XOR it is InTransit, you need an XOR gate.
In Relational terms, this is a Basetype::Subtype structure. If it is implemented properly, it provides full integrity, and eliminates Nulls.
As far as I know, it is the only Relational method. Beware, the methods provided by famous writers are non-relational, monstrous, massively inefficient, and they don't work.
###Record ID
But first ... I would not be serving you if I didn't mention that your files have no integrity right now, you have a Record Filing System. This is probably not your fault, in that the famous writers know only pre-1970's Record Filing Systems, so that is all that they can teach, but the problem is, they badge it "relational", and that is untrue. They also have various myths about the RM, such as it doesn't support hierarchies, etc.
By starting with an ID stamped on every table, the data modelling process is crippled
You have no Row Uniqueness, as is required for RDBS.
an ID is not a Key.
If you do not understand that, please read this answer.
I have partially corrected those errors:
In Item, I have given a more useful PK. I have never heard any user discuss an Item RecordId, they always uses Codes.
Often those codes are made up of components, if so, you need to record those components in separate columns (otherwise you break 1NF).
Item needs an Alternate Key on Name, otherwise you will allow duplicate Names.
In Location, I have proposed a Key, which identifies an unique physical location. Please modify to suit.
If Location has a Name, that needs to be an AK.
I have not given you the Predicates. These are very important, for many reasons. The main reason here, is that it will prove the insanity of Record IDs. If you want them, please ask.
If you would like more information on Predicates, visit this Answer, scroll down (way down!) to Predicate, and read that section. Also check the ERD for them.
###Solution
What changes [do] I need to apply to the above schema?
Try this:
Item History Data Model
(Obsolete, refer below for the updated mode, in the context of the progression)
If you are not used to the Notation, please be advised that every little tick, notch, and mark, the solid vs dashed lines, the square vs round corners, means something very specific. Refer to the IDEF1X Notation for a full explanation, or Model Anatomy.
If you have not encountered Subtypes implemented properly before, please read this Subtype Overview
That is a self-contained document, with links to code examples
There is also an SO discussion re How to implement referential integrity in subtypes.
When contemplating a Subtype cluster, consider each Basetype::Subtype pair as a single unit, do not perceive them as two fragments, or two halves. Each pair in one fact.
ItemHistory is an event (a fact) in the history of an Item.
Each ItemHistory fact is either a Location fact XOR an InTransit fact.
Each of those facts has different attributes.
Notice that the model represents the simple, honest, truth about the real world that you are engaging. In addition to the integrity, etc, as discussed above, the result is simple straight-forward code: every other "solution" makes the code complex, in order to handle exception cases. And some "solutions" are more horrendous than others.
Dr E F Codd gave this to us in 1970. It was implemented it as a modelling method in 1984, named IDEF1X. That became the standard for Relational Databases in 1993. I have used it exclusively since 1987.
But the authors who write books, allegedly on the Relational Model, have no knowledge whatsoever, about any of these items. They know only pre-1970's ISAM Record Filing Systems. They do not even know that they do not have the Integrity, Power, or Speed of Relational Databases, let alone why they don't have it.
Date, Darwen, Fagin, Zaniolo, Ambler, Fowler, Kimball, are all promoting an incorrect view of the RM.
Response to Comments
1) ItemHistory, contains Discriminator column 'InTransit'.
Correct. And all the connotations that got with that: it is a control element; its values better be constrained; etc.
Shall it be enum with the value Y / N?
First, understand that the value-stored has meaning. That meaning can be expressed any way you like. In English it means {Location|InTransit}.
For the storage, I know it is the values for the proposition InTransit are {True|False}, ...
In SQL (if you want the real article, which is portable), I intended it as a BIT or BOOLEAN. Think about what you want to show up in the reports. In this case it is a control element, so it won't be present in the user reports. There I would stick to InTransit={0|1}.
But if you prefer {Y|N}, that is fine. Just keep that consistent across the database (do not use {0|1} in one place and {Y|N} in another).
For values that do show up in reports, or columns such as EventType, I would use {InTransit|Location}.
In SQL, for implementation, if it BOOLEAN, the domain (range-of-values) is already constrained. nothing further is required.
If the column were other BOOLEAN,` you have two choices:
CHECKConstraint
CHECK #InTransit IN ( "Y", "N" )
Reference or Lookup Table
Implement a table that contains only the valid domain. The requirement is a single column, the Code itself. And you can add a column for short Descriptor that shows up in reports. CHAR(12)works nicely for me.
ENUM
There is no ENUM in SQL. Some of the non-SQL databases have it. Basically it implements option [2] above, with a Lookup table, under the covers. It doesn't realise that the rows are unique, and so it Enumerates the rows, hence the name, but it adds a column for the number, which is of course an ID replete with AUTOINCREMENT, so MySQL falls into the category of Stupid Thing to Do as described in this answer (scroll down to the Lookup Table section).
So no, do not use ENUM unless you wish to be glued at the hip to a home-grown, stupid, non-SQL platform, and suffer a rewrite when the database is ported to a real SQL platform. The platform might be stupid, but that is not a good reason to go down the same path. Even if MySQL is all you have, use one of the two SQL facilities given above, do not use ENUM.
2) Why is'ItemHistoryTransit' needed as 'Date' column
(DATETIME,not DATE, but I don't think that matters.)
[It] is there in ItemHistory?
The standard method of constraining (everything in the database is constrained) the nature of teh Basetype::Subtype relationship is, to implement the exact same PK of the Basetype in the Subtype. The Basetype PK is(ItemCode, DateTime).
[Why] will only Discriminator not work?
It is wrong, because it doesn't follow the standard requirement, and thus allows weird and wonderful values. I can't think of an instance where that could be justified, even if a replacement constraint was provided.
Second, there can well be more than two occs of ItemEventsthat are InTransitper ItemCode,`which that does not allow.
Third, it does not match the Basetype PK value.
Solution
Actually, a better name for the table would be ItemEvent. Labels are keys to understanding.
I have given the Predicates, please review carefully.
Data model updated.
Item Event Data Model
You could add a boolean field for in_transit to item_location_history so when it is getting moved from Location A to Location B, you set the LocationId to Location B (so you know where it is going) but then when it actually arrives you log another row with LocationId as LocationB but with in_transit as false. That way you know when it arrived also.
If you don't need to know where it is headed when it is "in transit" then you could just add "In Transit" as a location and keep your schema the same. In the past with an inventory applicaiton, I went as far as making each truck a location so that we knew what specific truck the item was in.
One of the techniques I've adopted over the years is to normalize transitional attributes (qty, status, location, etc.) from the entity table. If you also want to track the history, just version (versionize?) the subsequent status table.
create table ItemLocation(
ItemID int,
Effective date,
LocationID int,
Remarks varchar( 256 ),
constraint PK_ItemLocation primary key( ItemID, Effective ),
constraint FK_ItemLocation_Item foreign key( ItemID )
references Items( ID ),
constraint FK_ItemLocation_Location foreign key( LocationID )
references Locations( ID )
);
There are several good design options, I've shown the simplest, where "In transit" is implied. Consider the following data:
ItemID Effective LocationID Remarks
====== ========= ========== ===============================
1001 2015-04-01 15 In location 15
1001 2015-04-02 NULL In Transit [to location xx]
1001 2015-04-05 17 In location 17
Item 1001 appears in the database when it arrives at location 15, where it spends one whole day. The next day it is removed and shipped. Three days later it arrives at location 17 where it is remains to this day.
Implied meanings are generally frowned upon and are indeed easy to overdo. If desired, you can add an actual status field to contain "In location" and "In Transit" values. You may well consider such a course if you think there could be other status values added later (QA Testing, Receiving, On Hold, etc.). But for just two possible values, In Location or In Transit, implied meaning works.
At any rate, you know the current whereabouts of any item by fetching the LocationID with the latest Effective date. You also have a history of where the item is at any date -- and both can be had with the same query.
declare AsOf date = sysdate;
select i.*, il.Effective, IfNull( l.LocationName, 'In Transit' ) as Location
from Items i
join ItemLocation il
on il.ItemID = i.ID
and il.Effective =(
select Max( Effective )
from ItemLocation
where ItemID = il.ItemID
and Effective <= AsOf )
left join Locations l
on l.ID = il.LocationID;
Set the AsOf value to "today" to get the most recent location or set it to any date to see the location as of that date. Since the current location will be far and away the most common query, define a view that generates just the current location and use that in the join.
join CurrentItemLocation cil
on cil.ItemID = i.ID
left join Locations l
on l.ID = cil.LocationID;
Currently, I have 48 fields.
I'm completely new to access. This is how I decided to connect everything together.
It doesn't seem to be very effective. Could somebody help me understand how to normalize this database?
Should I try to put employee information in one table, job information in another table and then have an equipment lookup table?
The current job, last job, and previous job can all the SAME table. If you sort this table by descending job start date, then then you have current, last and previous. You thus don’t need nor want a separate table for each of these which really amounts to the concept of a “job”. If sorting by date is not enough, then you could add a column called Job Type (current, previous, etc.). Again, we still only using the one table.
The same goes for Equipment. You really don’t care if the limit is 3 last, or 300 last. By building a normalized table, then ONE form can edit all types and you save MASSIVE amounts of coding and building of tables, User interface software, and that of building quires to retrieve + show the last 3 jobs in a form.
The fact that your design with FAR LESS cost of development allows 3 or 300 last jobs is really moot. More important if some manager comes along and now wants you to save the last 4 jobs, you don’t have some massive re-design here. And you can on the fly add new job types. So in place of current, and say previous, you can also have un-completed, or failed jobs. So adding new business rules means again you don’t add a new type of job table, but only a “type” to the one column you already using to define the job as current or previous.
Identify like objects and make one table to store all of them. In your design you have three tables for equipment but each item of equipment has the same fields; they should be one table. Similarly for jobs, each job is pretty much the same; they should be one table. The same for departments.
Figure out one or more column in each table that can uniquely identify the row in the table (that is, if you know the values for those columns it is impossible for there ever to be two rows with those values). These are your primary keys for your tables.
Identify cases in which an item in one table needs to "point to" (refer to) an item in another table. In this case, make sure that the referring table has a set of columns that match the referred-to table.
When you've done that, you'll have the beginnings of a correctly factored relational database design.
I hope someone can help me with this:
I have a simple query combining a list of names and basic details with another table containing more specific information. Some names will necessarily appear more than once and arbitrary distinctions like "John Smith 1" and "John Smith 2" are not an option, so I have been using an autonumber to keep the records distinct.
The problem is that my query is creating two records for each name that appears more than once. For example, there are two clients named 'Sophoan', each with a different id number, and the query has picked up each one twice resulting in four records (in total there are 122 records when there should only be 102). 'Unique values' is set to 'yes'.
I've researched as much as I can and am completely stuck. I've tried to tinker with sql but it always comes back with errors, I presume because there are too many fields in the query.
What am I missing? Or is a query the wrong approach and I need to find another way to combine my tables?
Project in detail: I'm building a database for a charity which has two main activities: social work and training. The database is to record their client information and the results of their interactions with clients (issues they asked for help with, results of training workshops etc.). Some clients will cross over between activities which the organisation wants to track, hence all registered clients go into one list and individual tables spin of that to collect data for each specific activity the client takes part in. This query is supposed to be my solution for combining these tables for data entry by the user.
At present I have the following tables:
AllList (master list of client names and basic contact info; 'Social Work Register' and 'Participant Register' join to this table by
'Name')
Social Work Register (list of social work clients with full details
of each case)
Social Work Follow-up Table (used when staff call social work clients
to see how their issue is progressing; the register has too many
columns to hold this as well; joined to Register by 'Client Name')
Participants Register (list of clients for training and details of
which workshops they were attended and why they were absent if they
missed a session)
Individual workshop tables x14 (each workshop includes a test and
these tables records the clients answers and their score for each
individual test; there will be more than 20 of these when the
database is finished; all joined to the 'Participants Register' by
'Participant Name')
Queries:
Participant Overview Query (links the attendance data from the 'Register' with the grading data from each Workshop to present a read-only
overview; this one seems to work perfectly)
Social Work Query (non-functional; intended to link the 'Client
Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry so that when a new client
is registered it creates a new record in both tables, with the
records matched together)
Participant Query (not yet attempted; as above, intended to link the
'Participant Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry)
BUT I realised that queries can't be used for data entry, so this approach seems to be a dead end. I have had some success with using subforms for data entry but I'm not sure if it's the best way.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
[N.B. There are more tables that store secondary information but aren't relevant to the issue as they are not and will not be linked to any other tables.]
I realised that queries can't be used for data entry
Actually, non-complex queries are usually editable as long as the table whose data you want to edit remains 'at the core' of the query. Access applies a number of factors to determine if a query is editable or not.
Most of the time, it's fairly easy to figure out why a query has become non-editable.
Ask yourself the question: if I edit that data, how will Access ensure that exactly that data will be updated, without ambiguity?
If your tables have defined primary keys and these are part of your query, and if there are no grouping, calculated fields (fields that use some function to change or test the value of that field), or complex joins, then the query should remain editable.
You can read more about that here:
How to troubleshoot errors that may occur when you update data in Access queries and in Access forms
Dealing with Non-Updateable Microsoft Access Queries and the Use of Temporary Tables.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
This remark actually proves that you have design issues in your database.
A basic tenet of Database Design is to remove redundancy as much as possible. One of the reasons is actually to avoid having to update the same data in multiple places.
Another remark: you are using the Client's name as a Natural Key. Frankly, it is not a very good idea. Generally, you want to make sure that what constitutes a Primary key for a table is reliably unique over time.
Using people's names is generally the wrong choice because:
people change name, for instance in many cultures, women change their family name after they get married.
There could also have been a typo when entering the name and now it can be hard to correct it if that data is used as a Foreign Key all in different tables.
as your database grows, you are likely to end up with some people having the same name, creating conflicts, or forcing the user to make changes to that name so it doesn't create a duplicate.
The best way to enforce uniqueness of records in a table is to use the default AutoNumber ID field proposed by Access when you create a new table. This is called a Surrogate key.
It's not mean to be edited, changed or even displayed to the user. It's sole purpose is to allow the primary key of a table to be unique and non-changing over time, so it can reliably be used as a way to reference a record from one table to another (if a table needs to refer to a particular record, it will contain a field that will hold that ID. That field is called a Foreign Key).
The names you have for your tables are not precise enough: think of each table as an Entity holding related data.
The fact that you have a table called AllList means that its purpose isn't that well-thought of; it sounds like a catch-all rather than a carefully crafted entity.
Instead, if this is your list of clients, then simply call it Client. Each record of that table holds the information for a single client (whether to use plural or singular is up to you, just stick to your choice though, being consistent is hugely important).
Instead of using the client's name as a key, create an ID field, an Autonumber, and set it as Primary Key.
Let's also rename the "Social Work Register", which holds the Client's cases, simply as ClientCase. That relationship seems clear from your description of the table but it's not clear in the table name itself (by the way, I know Access allows spaces in table and field names, but it's a really bad idea to use them if you care at least a little bit about the future of your work).
In that, create a ClientID Number field (a Foreign Key) that will hold the related Client's ID in the ClientCase table.
You don't talk about the relationship between a Client and its Cases. This is another area where you must be clear: how many cases can a single Client have?
At most 1 Case ? (0 or 1 Case)
exactly 1 Case?
at least one Case? (1 or more Cases)
any number of Cases? (0 or more Cases)
Knowing this is important for selecting the right type of JOIN in your queries. It's a crucial part of the design assumptions when building your database.
For instance, in the most general case, assuming that a Client can have 0 or more cases, you could have a report that displays the Client's Name and the number of cases related to them like this:
SELECT Client.Name,
Count(ClientCase.ID) AS CountOfCases
FROM Client
LEFT JOIN ClientCase
ON Client.ID = ClienCase.ClientID
GROUP BY Client.Name
You've described your basic design a bit more, but that's not enough. Show us the actual table structures and the SQL of the queries you tried. From the description you give, it's hard to really understand the actual details of the design and to tell you why it fails and how to make it work.
We're working a web application (Ruby/Rails + Backbone,jQuery,Javascript) where a user can manage a booklist and drag and drop books to rearrange their order within the list, which has to be persisted.
We have books and a custom collection of books called booklist, for which we have two tables: book and booklist. Since a book could belong to multiple booklists, and a booklist consists of multiple books, they have an m x n relationship, and we have another additional table to store the mapping. Lets say we use this for all purposes. Now when the user wants to re-order the books in her bookshelf, we'd need to store that order.
I can totally see the sense about why storing ids in a column is evil , no doubts about it. What if we have the tables normalized, and for all other cases we'd go through the standard operations.
There are quite a few approaches on storing an additional order column. But still it seems like bad design to store the ids of the books in a booklist in a comma separated list in the booklist table, even assuming that integrity is maintained.
We'd never run into this...
SELECT * FROM users WHERE... OH F#$%CK -
Yes it's bad, you can't order, count, sum (etc) or even do a simple report without depending
on a top level language.
because we'd simply be selecting books based on the booklist id using the join table like the standard approach. (In any case, we're only getting the books as an array as part of the backbone booklist model)
So what if we retrieve the booklist and books for the booklist, and do the sorting programatically on the client side (in this case Javascript?) based on the CSV column.
It appears to be a simple solution because:
Every time the user reorders a book, we simply store all the ids in this one column freshly again. (A user will have at the most 20 to 30 books in a booklist).
We could of course simply ignore invalid ids, i.e. books that have been deleted after the booklist had been created.
What are the disadvantages of this approach, which seems to be simpler than maintaining the sort order and updating other columns every time an order is changed, or using a float or weightage, etc.
As per my knowldege its really violating the rule of RDBMS.Which causes facing many difficulties when applying JOIN.
Hope it will help you.
I have an Access database. Let's pretend it's for a pet store.
There's a table for animals.
Animals (animal_id, birth_date, price)
And then specific tables for the different types of animals we sell.
Dogs (animal_id, bark_volume)
Cats (animal_id, collar_size, shedding_rate)
Fish (animal_id)
Fish aren't interesting so they don't have any special fields. The Fish table just exists so you know which records in the Animals table are fish.
Now, I have a general purpose form for adding animals to the pet store. Before you get the form, you first have to say what kind of animal you're adding. Based on that, the form shows/hides fields, changes its recordsource, and binds the fields to the appropriate data columns. The form pulls its data from the queries DogInfo, CatInfo, and FishInfo.
Now, when you enter a dog or a cat, everything is fine. A record is added to both Animals and either Dogs or Cats.
However, when you enter a Fish, all you get is an Animal, no Fish.
What could be causing this? Is it somehow caused by the lack of other columns on the Fish table?
(Let's leave aside the fact that updating tables with a select query makes no sense at all. I didn't expect Access to let me do it at all in the first place, but Access's motto seems to be "Make the wrong thing easy to do and the right thing awkward to do." The database is relatively simple and infrequently used, though, and it's at least 100 times better than it was before I started working on it, so I'm not really too worried about this issue as long as I can make it work.)
"Is it somehow caused by the lack of other columns on the Fish table?"
Yes - when you enter data on child records (Dogs and Cats) Access will automatically fill in the parent ID (animal_id)
Since there is no data entry for the fish record it does not get created. You have to do that in code. Not sure how your form and data source is setup but you would do something like this on one of the form events:
Fish![animal_id] = Animal![animal_id]
Edit
In your FishInfo query you must give the Fish.[animal_id] an alias - you can't have two fields with the same name - call it Fish_animal_id
Then in the Form_BeforeUpdate event put this:
Me.Fish_animal_id = Me.animal_id
Have you thought about configuring relationships on the different tables? Given the design above, I would start by adding an identifying column to the specific-animal tables, and setting it as the primary key. E.g.:
Dogs(DOG_ID, animal_id, bark_volume)
Cats(CAT_ID, animal_id, collar_size, shedding_rate)
etc. In the relationships view, you'd then define a one-to-many (one-to-one?) relationship from Animals.ANIMAL_ID to Dogs.animal_id. You could then hook up the Animals table to a combo/listbox control on your form to select a record from that table. I think if you configure the control correctly, you can even create new records from that control (or you could use a subform).
Do you not have an separate IDs for the Dogs/Cats/Fish tables? Assuming the only difference is the number of columns, I'd be curious if that suddenly fixed it.
Bad design aside, did you set up a relationship between the various tables? And did you set the tables to enforce referential integrity?