I have an Access application, in which I have an employee table. The employees are part of several different levels in the organization. The orgranization has 1 GM, 5 department heads, and under each department head are several supervisors, and under those supervisors are the workers.
Depending on the position of the employee, they will only have access to records of those under them.
I wanted to represent the organization in a table with some sort of level system. The problem I saw with that was that there are many ppl on the same level (for example supervisors) but they shouldn't have access to the records of a supervisor in another department. How should I approach this problem?
One common way of keeping this kind of hierarchical data in a database uses only a single table, with fields something like this:
userId (primary key)
userName
supervisorId (self-referential "foreign key", refers to another userId in this same table)
positionCode (could be simple like 1=lakey, 2=supervisor; or a foreign key pointing to another table of positions and such)
...whatever else you need to store for each employee...
Then your app uses SQL queries to figure out permissions. To figure out the employees that supervisor 'X' (whose userId is '3', for example) is allowed to see, you query for all employees where supervisorId=3.
If you want higher-up bosses to be able to see everyone underneath them, the easiest way is just to do a recursive search. I.e. query for everyone that reports to this big boss, and for each of them query who reports to them, all the way down the tree.
Does that make sense? You let the database do the work of sorting through all the users, because computers are good at that kind of thing.
I put the positionCode in this example in case you wanted some people to have different permissions... for example, you might have a code '99' for HR employees which have the right to see the list of all employees.
Maybe I'll let some other people try to explain it better...
Here's an article from Microsoft's Access Cookbook that explains these queries rather well.
And here is a somewhat chunky explanation of the same.
Here's a completely different method (the "adjacency list model") that you might find useful, and his explanation is pretty good. He also points out some difficulties with both methods (when he talks about the tables being "denormalized").
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 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.
Being new to relational database design, I am trying to clarify one piece of information to properly design this database. Although I am using Filemaker as the platform, I believe this is a universal question.
Using the logic of ideally having all one to many relationships, and using separate tables or join tables to solve these.
I have a database with multiple products, made by multiple brands, in multiple product categories. I also want this to be as scale-able as possible when it comes to reporting, being able to slice and dice the data in as many ways as possible since the needs of the users are constantly changing.
So when I ask the question "Does each Brand have multiple products" I get a yes, and "Does each product have multiple brands" the answer is no. So this is a one to many relationship, but it also seems that a self-join table might give me everything that I need.
This methodology also seems to go down a rabbit hole for other "product related" information such as product category, each product is tied to one product category, but only one product category is related to a product.
So I see 2 possibilities, make three tables and join them with primary and foreign keys, one for Brand, one for Product Category, and one for Products.
Or the second possibility is to create one table that has the brand and product category and product info all in one table (since they are all product related) and simply do self-joins and other query based tables to give me the future reporting requirements that will be changing over time.
I am looking for input from experiences that might point me in the right direction.
Thanks in advance!
Could you ever want to store additional information about a brand (company URL, phone number, etc.) or about a product category (description, etc.)?
If the answer is yes, you definitely want to use three tables. If you don't, you'll be repeating all that information for every single item that belongs to the same brand or same category.
If the answer is no, there is still an advantage to using three tables - it will prevent typos or other spelling inconsistencies from getting into your database. For example, it would prevent you from writing a brand as "Coca Cola" for some items and as "Coca-Cola" for other items. These inconsistencies get harder and harder to find and correct as your database grows. By having each brand only listed once in it's own table, it will always be written the same way.
The disadvantage of multiple tables is the SQL for your queries is more complicated. There's definitely a tradeoff, but when in doubt, normalize into multiple tables. You'll learn when it's better to de-normalize with more experience.
I am not sure where do you see a room for a self-join here. It seems to me you are saying: I have a table of products; each product has one brand and one (?) category. If that's the case then you need either three tables:
Brands -< Products >- Categories
or - in Filemaker only - you can replace either or both the Brands and the Categories tables with a value list (assuming you won't be renaming brands/categories and at the expense of some reporting capabilities). So really it depends on what type of information you want to get out in the end.
If you truly want your solution to be scalable you need to parse and partition your data now. Otherwise you will be faced with the re-structuring of the solution down the road when the solution grows in size. You will also be faced with parsing and relocating the data to new tables. Since you've also included the SQL and MySQL tags if you plan on connecting Filemaker to an external data source then you will definitely need to up your game structurally.
Building everything in one table is essentially using Filemaker to do Excel work and it won't cut it if you are connecting to SQL, MySQL, etc.
Self join tables are a great tool. However, they should really only be used for calculating small data points and should not be used as pivot points or foundations for your reporting features. It can grow out of control as time goes on and you need to keep your backend clean.
Use summary and sub-summary reporting features to slice product based data.
For retail and general product management solutions, whether it's Filemaker/SQL/or whatever the "Brand" or "Vendor" is it's own table. Then you would have a "Products" table (the match key being the "Brand ID").
The "Product Category" field should be a field in the "Products" table. You can manage the category values by building a standard value list or building a value list based on a "Product Category" table. The second scenario is better for long term administration.
So I have this application that I'm drawing up and I start to think about my users. Well, My initial thought was to create a table for each group type. I've been thinking this over though and I'm not sure that this is the best way.
Example:
// Users
Users [id, name, email, age, etc]
// User Groups
Player [id, years playing, etc]
Ref [id, certified, etc]
Manufacturer Rep [id, years employed, etc]
So everyone would be making an account, but each user would have a different group. They can also be in multiple different groups. Each group has it's own list of different columns. So what is the best way to do this? Lets say I have 5 groups. Do I need 8 tables + a relational table connecting each one to the user table?
I just want to be sure that this is the best way to organize it before I build it.
Edit:
A player would have columns regarding the gear that they use to play, the teams they've played with, events they've gone to.
A ref would have info regarding the certifications they have and the events they've reffed.
Manufacturer reps would have info regarding their position within the company they rep.
A parent would have information regarding how long they've been involved with the sport, perhaps relations with the users they are parent of.
Just as an example.
Edit 2:
**Player Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
rank
**Ref Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
is certified
certified by
verified
**Photographer / Videographer / News Reporter Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
worked under name
website / channel link
about
verified
**Tournament / Big Game Rep Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
position
tourney id
verified
**Store / Field / Manufacturer Rep Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
position
store / field / man. id
verified
This is what I planned out so far. I'm still new to this so I could be doing it completely wrong. And it's only five groups. It was more until I condensed it some.
Although I find it weird having so many entities which are different from each other, but I will ignore this and get to the question.
It depends on the group criteria you need, in the case you described where each group has its own columns and information I guess your design is a good one, especially if you need the information in a readable form in the database. If you need all groups in a single table you will have to save the group relevant information in a kind of object, either a blob, XML string or any other form, but then you will lose the ability to filter on these criteria using the database.
In a relational Database I would do it using the design you described.
The design of your tables greatly depends on the requirements of your software.
E.g. your description of users led me in a wrong direction, I was at first thinking about a "normal" user of a software. Basically name, login-information and stuff like that. This I would never split over different tables as it really makes tasks like login, session handling, ... really complicated.
Another point which surprised me, was that you want to store the equipment in columns of those user's tables. Usually the relationship between a person and his equipment is not 1 to 1 and in most cases the amount of different equipment varies. Thus you usually have a relationship between users and their equipment (1:n). Thus you would design an equipment table and there refer to the owner's user id.
But after you have an idea of which data you have in your application and which relationships exist between your data, the design of the tables and so on is rather straitforward.
The good news is, that your data model and database design will develop over time. Try to start with a basic model, covering the majority of your use cases. Then slowly add more use cases / aspects.
As long as you are in the stage of planning and early implementation phasis, it is rather easy to change your database design.
I have a site where some pages (we call them gateway pages) are based loosely on certain departments in the organization. Each department has classes associated with it. Unfortunately some of my pages are not associated with a specific department, but do display information about several classes from a department so I can't just query the database strictly on department alone.
Would it be smarter to create a table called gateway_classes with a fk from the gateway table in each class or form a query to somehow filter out exactly what I need from my existing tables using an array of classes to be pulled during the query?
Here's my tables:
departments_classes | classes_vendors | departments | vendors | classes | products | gateway
Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
More Info: There are roughly 350 classes and 18 departments and 12 gateway pages...
Your indexing table idea sounds like it'd work just fine. The only downside to that is that you've got to maintain it separately, and you want to make sure that the data you hold in that table isn't being duplicated in any of your existing tables.
If you don't want to maintain that data differently than you're currently doing so, you can use CF's arrays (or structs) to hold that correlation data (which you'd have to pull from the db in a separate query) and then loop over it as you construct the query that pulls the classes for a given page.
Either way would work okay, it's more a matter of how you prefer to do it, and what you think would be easiest to build, test, and maintain.
One thing about efficiency - make sure you not only link your tables via Foreign Keys (which helps to maintain data integrity), but also put in (nonclustered) indices, which helps the efficiency of the joins and lookups your queries will be doing.
I've seen dramatic speed improvements in my queries (CFQUERYs operating against MS SQL) with the simple act of putting in indices.
In MS SQL, you do so like this:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX yourIndexName ON yourTableName(yourFieldName)
I hope this helps!
Your problem sounds similar to a common scenario for determining user rights. A User may belong to some Group that has Rights associated with it or the User may be assigned Rights individually. In your case, the User is the Gateway, the Group is the Department, and the Rights are the Classes. A Gateway can then be linked to any number of Departments and/or Classes.
Using this model, you just need to add the gateway_classes table as you describe along with a gateway_departments table.
You could then use UNION to merge the "gateway classes" query with the "gateway departments" query (or perhaps something more elegant) but I think this schema will do want you need without introducing any redundant information.