If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Table design question
Hi All,
I just wanted to see if the design of some fields in the table are standard practice. The database admin set up a Code_Desc table with fields Code_Type_ID, Code_Value and Code_Desc Code_Desc Code_Type_ID, Code_Value, Code_Desc 1 1 Emp Status - Active 1 2 Emp Status - Inactive 2 1 Emp Type - Associate 2 2 Emp Type - Manager 2 3 Emp Type - Auditor 3 1 Error Type - Major 3 2 Error Type - Minor 4 1 Shift - 1st 4 2 Shift - 2nd etc... However in tables that use these values she is wanting the Code_Type_ID and Code_Value combined. Example: Audit_History (table) Shift, Error_ID, Emp_Type (fields) 41 32 21 (combined) Is this standard? Is this the best approach? To me it adds coding by having to combine everything, but it also makes it hard for others to run queries on the Db that have limited query skills. Do you see other pitfalls besides the one I see? What is the best way to combine it as well, concatenation? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Table design question
It seems to me that the problem is the Code_Desc not having a single field
primary key (unless it's the Code_Desc field and that brings up a bunch of other problems). Also the Code_Desc being the name of both the table and a field could cause problems. The table should be named something like Code_Descs which is plural as that's where the Code_Desc are stored. But I digress. I'd put an autonumber PK field on Code_Desc table and store that number in the Error_ID field of the Audit_History table instead of the combination of the two fields. -- Jerry Whittle, Microsoft Access MVP Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder. "Mark" wrote: Hi All, I just wanted to see if the design of some fields in the table are standard practice. The database admin set up a Code_Desc table with fields Code_Type_ID, Code_Value and Code_Desc Code_Desc Code_Type_ID, Code_Value, Code_Desc 1 1 Emp Status - Active 1 2 Emp Status - Inactive 2 1 Emp Type - Associate 2 2 Emp Type - Manager 2 3 Emp Type - Auditor 3 1 Error Type - Major 3 2 Error Type - Minor 4 1 Shift - 1st 4 2 Shift - 2nd etc... However in tables that use these values she is wanting the Code_Type_ID and Code_Value combined. Example: Audit_History (table) Shift, Error_ID, Emp_Type (fields) 41 32 21 (combined) Is this standard? Is this the best approach? To me it adds coding by having to combine everything, but it also makes it hard for others to run queries on the Db that have limited query skills. Do you see other pitfalls besides the one I see? What is the best way to combine it as well, concatenation? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Table design question
=?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= wrote:
Hi All, I just wanted to see if the design of some fields in the table are standard practice. The database admin set up a Code_Desc table with fields Code_Type_ID, Code_Value and Code_Desc Code_Desc Code_Type_ID, Code_Value, Code_Desc 1 1 Emp Status - Active 1 2 Emp Status - Inactive 2 1 Emp Type - Associate 2 2 Emp Type - Manager 2 3 Emp Type - Auditor 3 1 Error Type - Major 3 2 Error Type - Minor 4 1 Shift - 1st 4 2 Shift - 2nd etc... However in tables that use these values she is wanting the Code_Type_ID and Code_Value combined. Example: Audit_History (table) Shift, Error_ID, Emp_Type (fields) 41 32 21 (combined) Is this standard? Is this the best approach? To me it adds coding by having to combine everything, but it also makes it hard for others to run queries on the Db that have limited query skills. Do you see other pitfalls besides the one I see? What is the best way to combine it as well, concatenation? I do not consider this as standard. A more standard approach would be to create a table for each type of code (Emp Status, Emp Type, Error Type, Shift). In that way you can refer to a specific table when using a specific code in a table. Besides that, in the current design you store the meaning of Code_Type_ID multiple times which is a sign of poor design. -- Groeten, Peter http://access.xps350.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|